User talk:Davemeistermoab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Utah interstate shields

Oregon has recently got its own personalized interstate shields, and upon seeing them, they're a heck of a lot similar to how they're made in Utah. Example, Image:I-84 (Oregon).svg. I've been thinking about asking the author of the image to make similar ones for Interstates 15, 80, and 70 but I wanted some input first. What do you think? C L — 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. You might post something at WT:UTSH or revive this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_13#Interstate_issues_again......... to get more opinions. Dave (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combining certain NV SR articles

Dave, I've given a bit more thought to your suggestion of combining articles on short NV state routes in urban areas. I've been thinking about this since an editor is going through and moving state route articles in Las Vegas to their common names...although the state route designation and street name information don't totally mesh, in my opinion. It seems the SR info can be removed from these articles and replaced into one article--that way, these editors can create articles on any road they choose without blurring the differences between SR and street information. So this would entail most of the 500-699 routes primarily in Las Vegas, Reno/Sparks, and Carson City (with probably a separate page for each area). I believe some other state route projects have some similar pages for similar instances. Since you first suggested it, I wanted your thoughts. Thanks, --Ljthefro (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your ideas. I think another thing to consider is how much CAN be written about a road. NV-604 of course should have its own article, NV-430 probably too. But we aren't every going to find much official information about some of these short urban streets, and I think they should be combined into a list of "mini-articles", The Pennsylvania roads project is one that does this I believe New York too.Dave (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with what you're saying. Thanks for the feedback Dave. I'll start working on this when I have the time. --Ljthefro (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:History

No worries, you were in fact right the first time. I-15 wasn't built over existing pavement, so US-91 would have been the better choice. Thanks Dave - C L — 20:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAs

Hi, I am currently helping another Wiki project adopt the GA system. I have a problem understanding the use of:

Copy this for the edit summary: "Nominating [[ArticleName]]" - from WP:GAN on How to nominate an article

What is this used for; isn't # {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~ enough? Thanks in advance. diego_pmc (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The # {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~ is the most important part. The edit summary is more of a courtesy to aid in repairing malformed requests, fixing vandalism, etc. Dave (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USRD participants list

As discussed at WT:USRD, the participants list at WP:USRD is being split by state. Due to any of the following factors- your extended participation in WT:USRD discussions, your IRC participation, or your extended participation in Shields or Maps, I have guessed that you are a nationwide editor and have designated you as such in the USRD partiicpants table. This is part of the lengthy process. If this is in error, please let me know immediately. This is especially likely with this group as I have to guess whether you are a national or a state editor. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M-35 FAC

		The WikiProject Michigan State Highways Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your review and support. M-35 passed its FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hours of service

It passed FA review! Boo-yah. This is only the second trucks-related article to achieve FA status (the other is Winter service vehicle). You know, I was thinking the other day... nobody has vandalized any of my pages. Is that a good or bad thing? Actually, I created a new article Old Tjikko the other day and someone inserted some gibberish at the bottom, but other than that... nothing. Anyway, happy edting. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway

Hey there, I think that Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway is ready for you to take another look at. I've sorted all the problems except for the one with the 'Modern Railways' reference: I can't find the exact source for that at the moment so I have temporarily removed the sentence until I can get it. No rush for you to look at, it just whenever you have time. Thanks. --- Dreamer ⁸⁴ 09:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAC Iran-Contra

Hey, thanks for such a thorough GA review at Iran-Contra affair. I will begin working on the list of recommendations as soon as I can, which will most likely be tomorrow. I will notify you when they are completed. Again, thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have completed your list of tasks at Talk:Iran-Contra affair/GA1. I have either marked the item with a checkmark, signifying its completion, or I have commented on it. I hope you take a look. Again, thanks so much for such a great review! Happyme22 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word choice?

I think in this revision, the word you're looking for is "formerly", not "formally". One comes from former, meaning in the past; the other comes from formal, the opposite of casual. I haven't reverted yet because I'm not entirely sure of your intention, figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and a heads up. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, Dave

Hey man, I've been wondering if I could get some help. I've been working on Utah State Route 269 and I ~~know~~ think that it's at least up to B-class status (I've flagged it for reassessment). I want to maybe get this up to GA but I'm not sure what to do, so since you have so much experience dealing with GAs I wanted to know what I could do for now without going through the review process. I know what I'm requesting is nothing small so if you don't have time, it's all right. Cheers - C L — 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Actually I'm not an expert writer. In fact I suck at it. I am just now getting several articles up to GA status, but lots of help from others and after many revisions.

The best advice I can give is to get somebody to review your articles. This can be as formal as using some of the review processes and wikiprojects within wikipedia (WP:Peer Review, WP:LOCE, etc) or just asking a friend, as you just did. Fair warning, the formal review processes are often backlogged, there are more editors than reviewers on wikipedia. I have found them to be good if you are patient. No matter how you do it, the point is to get another set of eyes to look at your work as other people will see mistakes that you will miss.

The "perfect" wikipedia article conforms to the WP:MOS (Manual of Style) at every detail. I say this tongue in cheek, as the MOS is a work in progress itself and even contradictory in spots. That's the nature of the beast when a project is run by thousands of volunteers. It's a lot to swallow at once. My advise is to go for a GA review/FA review, and as people chew you out for not complying with the MOS, read that section and learn. =-) Take all feedback graciously. Even if somebody is ripping your work to shreds they are taking the time to read your article and help you to make it better. Also, once you've been through the GA process once or twice, you should start reviewing other articles. I've found its a little like bartering, the more of a good review you give others, the more willing others are to review your work.

As far as Utah State Route 269 is concerned. It's definitely a B. I do see some problems with it if you want to go for GA.

WP:LEAD - this section of the MOS has guidelines on how long the lead section should be relative to the rest of the article. The lead is a little long and should be max two paragraphs. Or make the article longer =-)
Also per the MOS, use bolded text sparingly such as the article title, alternate titles (that redirect to this artile) etc. Rarely should text be both bolded and linked to another article. You will need to choose between bolding and linking on Martin Luther King, etc. If you notice my lone FA (so far =-) ) Interstate 70 in Utah there is no bolding in the lead paragraph. That was intentional because I had to choose between bolding Interstate 70 and linking Interstate 70 to comply with the MOS, I chose to link as that was more important.
WP:Sources - Unfortunately personal websites (such as Dan Stober's excellent website) are not allowed on FA class articles. For GA articles it depends on who reviews your article. Some people will not allow it, others may say, yes it's a personal website, but it looks credible and let it slide. However, even if it passes GA review with a personal website as a source, if you want to take this to FA, you will need to find a different source. This does NOT apply to external links, and you could use Stober's website as an external link, even on an FA class article. What I would advise is do search old newspaper articles and see if you can fine another source. Google's News Archive has been a lifesaver for me, even though you only get a couple of paragraphs for free and have to pay if you want the entire article.

hope this helps. Good luck on the GADave (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've just done what I could do for now. As for the sources, I doubt I could find two paragraphs of any newspaper that are as detailed as Dan Stober's lengthy article on SR-269, so it all depends on who's reviewing I guess... if the reviewer doesn't like the source, I'll try finding something though. Thanks for that link. I'll begin the GA review process when I get access to DSL, dial-up does get irritating at times. Thanks again - C L — 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)