User talk:Mihsfbstadium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Mihsfbstadium, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Paddu 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary in article Interstate 96

Use the discussion tab to find an article's talk page.
Use the discussion tab to find an article's talk page.

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Interstate 96. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article.

Also, be sure to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) – this will automatically produce a signature so other contributors can identify multiple posts from you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page! And again, thanks for your help! -- Paddu 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I just havent gotten a chance to finish out the section. I was mearly pointing out where I left off on the route description in case somebody else wanted to pick it up where I left off.  :)

Yeah, put that in the talk page. -- Paddu 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the signature I am new and slowly getting used to the hang of the buttons on the top. I have been pretty good with it lately so I feel I am getting the grasp of it. --Mihsfbstadium 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:USRD Newsletter Issue 1

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1 10 February 2007 About the Newsletter
Departments: Features:
Project News Notability of state highways is challenged
Important deletion debates
Featured subproject
Featured member
From the editor
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/N
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 2 24 February 2007 About the Newsletter
Departments: Features:
Project News Notability of state highways is upheld
Deletion debates Kansas Turnpike is now a Good Article
Featured subproject U.S. Roads IRC channel created
Featured member Infoboxes and Navigation subproject started
From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 3 10 March 2007 About the Newsletter
Departments: Features:
Project news Inactivity?
Deletion debates Article Improvement Drive
Featured subproject Good and Featured Articles
Featured member
From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

[edit] Active user verification

Hello, Mihsfbstadium. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Roads Inactivity notification

You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan Business Loops/Spurs

Thank you for working on helping to create more of these pages and including infoboxes as you go! I have a couple of tips and a request.

  1. Date formats in wikilinks are YYYY-MM-DD. Formating this way allows the different preferences to display them as 1 January 2007 or January 1, 2007, etc. Don't forget the zeroes in one-digit days or months.
  2. The first usage of the page subject/title should be in bold. Also with interstate business routes, the corrent name is either Business Loop I-xx or Business Spur I-xx. The US routes use Business Route US xx or just Business US xx for a full name. These all get abbreviated to BL I-xx, BS I-xx, BUS US xx, etc.
  3. Also, the first usage of a city name should be wikilinked. Don't count the info box though.
  4. Please add the county/counties where the loops and spurs are located. Some of them do cross county lines odd enough. You can use the counties= tag in the infobox for this.

Everything else looks great and thanks for the good work. In the future as you create pages, or update pages with infoboxes, can you please edit User:Imzadi1979/ComplistBR? Each page with an infobox shouldn't have the yellow background. Those needing maps will have a blue background after the next update. You can change the background by:

  1. Go to User:Imzadi1979/ComplistBR directly or from my user page.
  2. Click the edit button at the bottom of the table.
  3. Find the page in the list.
  4. Change bgcolor=FAF286 to bgcolor=CCCCFF
  5. Save the edits.

Once again, thank you! Imzadi1979 17:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem on the dates, I was wondering what I was doing wrong to get them to work right. As for the next item I am goinh to figure out exactly what you mean by looking at the changes you did. I will try harder to get those wiki links better. I was not aware of the County line issue and will resolve that. On that note does that include all of the Road Pages for the state of Michigan? As for your page I figured I let you handle that since its your sub page and I dont like editing others peoples sub pages but if you have no issues I can. --Mihsfbstadium 05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Kentwood High School

Just follow the manual of style. It needs an intro sentence with the name bolded, location, found, brief description, etc. There's no official format for schools, but there are guidelines for articles in general. --Wafulz 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good somebody else can do it then. I did not write that part of the article, but I am interested in doing a Wiki Project for High schools in general. If only I could leave the transportation alone to do one. --Mihsfbstadium 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USRD Inactivity check and news report

Hello, Mihsfbstadium. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

  1. Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
  2. There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forest Hills Eastern High School

Please stop changing it to OK Blue it is OK Silver. I would know i am on the team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brybs720 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it back and put the link up of where I recieved the info. If the MHSAA is not good enough then nothing will be. --Mihsfbstadium 04:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I-196

That's in the last column: "Signed as exits 69A (east) and 69B (west) westbound" --NE2 05:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove any cities; I removed unincorporated communities with no defined boundaries. I removed the future exit because it's simply proposed; once construction starts it can be added. --NE2 06:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should wait until construction has started, but I guess I have no objections to adding a row for that exit and making it clear that it's proposed (bgcolor=dddddd?) --NE2 06:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on WT:ELG, and also Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you. --NE2 15:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

you have refused to listen to me on the ELG. I told you the examples show it. You refuse to take off the citation. Frankly I consider it now vandalism what you are doing. So go place else and mess that up. Stop doing it in Michigan. Next thing is the road signs I dont care as much as getting the streets and local places which you and me both worked on getting. Thats why I merged the two exit lists together to get a better looking one. But then you reverted that. So frankly if you dont want to be a contributer but a vandel its fine by me. Just do it someplace else. --Mihsfbstadium 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Calling me a vandal, when I'm not vandalizing, is a personal attack, and can get you blocked. Can you show me where the examples support your position? Please be clear, since it is sometimes impossible to figure out exactly what you are saying. --NE2 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am do you have a problem with that. I told you on the talk page for I-196 multiple times that the baldwin exit was cited in the text and you refused to take down the cite. Plus when I told you the As and Bs were in ELG you refused to listen to that. So frankly thats being a vandal. If you dont LISTEN and dont work as a TEAM like I did when I first went man that exit list sucks but then looked closer and said he has the right idea lets make it a bit better and I did but then you come back and revert it. Frankly I find that being a vandal. --Mihsfbstadium 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The citation needed is a minor issue, but Wikipedia cannot be a citation for itself; the future section needs a citation (and a cleanup). I looked at the ELG examples, and the ones with A-B split are two separate roads. The interchange that is similar to the I-196 exits is 3N-S on I-287, which is one row in the example. --NE2 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not talking about that but the MDOT 5 year plan. It pointly states that the road is under planning this year which is why the orange barrels were out and then next two years is construction. These 5 year plans on MDOT are pretty much set in stone in what they do. All you have to do is look for the CON and that means its gonna get constructed. Frankly why are making such a big deal making this list smaller in such a small manner. Its not like it is huge list in first place. --Mihsfbstadium 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the five year plan; it mentions the project but doesn't give details on what ramps will be included. --NE2 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
To get more involved in that well frankly all you have to do is look at the Enviromental Clearence thing. But If you want read that legal jargon have fun. I did and thats how I got the info I did. Its not easy to read but I tell ya it states exactly what I wrote. As for the ramps does it matter that much those be cited and not wait half a year to see the project page to get the final report. The legal document I do not feel it to be the best resource since it goes on and on and on about this that and everything. --Mihsfbstadium 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please cite a source, or it will continue to be marked as needing one. Does the document include the exit number? --NE2 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Past history with MDOT using guess what COMMON SENSE tells me the exit number will not be with M-11/28th/Wilson but with chicago drive. Plus the fact that it goes from south to north on exit letters well guess what the only logical number would be 69C. Wow what a concept. Its not original research in that guess what its what MDOT has done in the past. As for the citation its in there that its under construction hence no need to cite it. --Mihsfbstadium 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What you just said is a textbook case of original research. You think it makes sense, but don't have any reliable sources. For all we know, they could change Chicago Drive to 68 and make Baldwin 69. Or they could do any number of other things. Unless you have a reliable source that states that the exit will be numbered 69C, you cannot put that number in. --NE2 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
How is it original research when its in the same mile. Last time I checked MDOT does the exits by millage. Of course they could like they could also decide to stop construction of it but that doesnt fit into their plans. Frankly I find this debate funny and I have not heard otherwise like they did with 54th street, M6 and 68th street exits. Those got renumbered but thats only because the mile marker for 60th street was used for 54th and hence they renumbered them to keep them in better position. Its not like the Chicago Drive/Baldwin Street setup where they are building an interchange into it. --Mihsfbstadium 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not guess exit numbers; it's original research. No amount of arguing on your end will change that. I will not reply any more to this issue. --NE2 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
ROTFLMAO really did you not read what is said in the text. The exit is a fix to Chicago Drive exit. All they are doing is making it so you can get into Jenison easier. Its very simple fact set by precendent that the state will number it 69C. Its not like say 36th on 96 which was a brand new interchange to a new street and everything else. Frankly the entire interchange will be massive when it gets built. I just dont understand your thinking on this. The only way I could see them using a diffrent number is IF and ONLY IF the East bound 196 was getting an exit to Baldwin. Which it is not getting so no exit no number just a letter. --Mihsfbstadium 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem? I added the source, and the changes are backed up by the ELG examples and discussion. --NE2 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

the discussion is not over. we are not to a consensus. until that occurs i dont want to see the exit list change to your excuse of an exit list. Frankly i find yours hard to understand versus the one I merged using your info and what was already there. --Mihsfbstadium 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of "what was already there" doesn't belong, and the discussion agrees. --NE2 05:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
not from what I have read. The medical corridor should be kept for the time being and the frankly the exits should also be left alone. So if you have something else to contribute to the article feel free to do so. Anything else will result in reverts. So feel free to do so. I have plenty of time on my hands. --Mihsfbstadium 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Then you fail at reading. You are the only one that disagrees with combining partial cloverleaves at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Fewer rows are better and removing the "medical corridor" and similar notes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Don't mention tangential facts. You're also the only one that thinks destinations that are not on any signs should be listed, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Only list what's signed. --NE2 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all I let you speak first. I then allowed the other editors to voice their opinions on your thoughts. I then voiced mine. Now its the rest of the editors to either say yes the method I am talking about is correct or no I am wrong. Its that simple. If all they hear is one side of course it will appear one sided at first. Does not mean they will all continue to agree at the end. On top of that you posted the comment early today. 24 hours have not even passed and you go and revert the section. Frankly I find that wrong in so many ways its hillarous. You really need to take a step back and figure out that not everything resolves around YOU and actually you cant OWN this article. As I said I been diplomatic with the initial changes. I did not revert the entire thing back to the original but took a step back after initial going what the hell and decided some changes were good but others werent. So I combined the good parts from both and presented. You reverted it back to the one you did and not even consider the work I did. As a result I considered the rest of the reverts to be vandalism in that you refused to even listen to what I was saying. YOu still dont understand that wikipedia is a community of editors not YOU. If you want to completely change the format a exit list is under and has been getting updates then ask the people who have been doing it. I do take suggestions quite well so do a lot of other michigan editors. This is the first time I ever you seen you in Michigan articles and as a result you started to wars with two diffrent michigan editors very quickly. Frankly if I were you I would start to think to myself is what I am doing helpful or harmful. Being BOLD is fine but you have to understand that it only applies when things are not already being actively maintained and was just a minor edit. What you did changes a lot of what was done and was quite a stretch in some cases. --Mihsfbstadium 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I made some improvements; you reverted. Guess who's trying to "OWN" the article? --NE2 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The M-89 interchange is right on the line between Ganges and Saugatuck Townships: [1] --NE2 21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLAG is a guideline, just like WP:ELG. That means it should be followed. You should also not use "multiplexed"; that's a neologism that non-roadgeeks won't understand. --NE2 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Interstate 93 amoung others that have the same thing. This is like your mess up with the decomish to delete. --Mihsfbstadium 19:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It was wrong there too, and I've fixed it. --NE2 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but I just read FLAG and see NOTHING in it that talks about roads or what we are reverting back and forth on. Okay FLAG is talking about prose not tables. If we are to use FLAG for everything then we should eliminate the signs from EVERY ARTICLE. If thats what you are saying. I am just trying to keep it flow with what has been done previously. Plus my feeling is that it looks better with a little sign showing thats an interstate and a US highway. Plus according to ELG its supposed to say Concurrency.--Mihsfbstadium 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:FLAG deals with shields in the middle of text. "I-196 begins concurrent with US-31" is text.
Isn't concurrency what I'm changing it to, and you keep removing? --NE2 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
this is from FLAG,

The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables (especially of sporting and other statistics), and have subsequently found widespread usage in infoboxes (a usage that some editors deprecated, and which can be problematic when done incautiously). They should not be used in the article body, as in, "...and after her third novel was published, Jackson moved to Bristol, Flag of England England, in April 2004, then...". Such misuse of icons in prose breaks up the continuity of the text, distracting the reader (example). This principle applies equally to other iconic images (for example, in an article about last year's top-40 pop singles, we would not interrupt sentences with icons of CD covers).

If I read this right it shows that flags are not to be part of the text body, tables does not matter. As for the text I could care less about. its the flags you keep removing and I keep on reverting back.--Mihsfbstadium 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image:GrandRapidsMI.gif

I see you have Image:GrandRapidsMI.gif in a page of your userspace. Its a non-free image, so thats not really allowed. A bot's tagged it for deletion, and I've fixed it for the main article, so could you pull it out of the userpage? Thanks. MBisanz talk 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

uhm that page in my talk is just a temp or sandbox as some would say. Its a copy of the Grand Rapids Article that I plan on moving over when I get it completed. I am not understanding what you mean that the GR article has been fixed since I did not see you do anything to that article. Can you explain what is going on. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the image to include a fairuse rationale for its use in the Grand Rapids article. If you put a ":" colon before the word image in the wikilink (as I've done in this conversation, then it won't appear and you could just pull it out when you movd the article over. MBisanz talk 03:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the problem with that logo then. I am not following you here. I rather not have to do additional edits of that page when I do a copy and paste effort. So can you explain to me when that page will get very seldom if any page hits that it really matters. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It shows up in the file link on the image page, so a bot thinks its a wrongly placed image since it lacks a rationale for use on your page, and nominates it for deletion. MBisanz talk 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well the thing is that it is the Grand Rapids Page. Its not my fault that the bot is made incorrectly. I am working on a new version page and as such would prefer not to have additional work just to make something better. I am already having enough work with that page as it is. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okey, I'll watch the image and try to keep the bot tags off it for the time being. MBisanz talk 04:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)