User talk:Scott5114/ArchiveE
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is an archive. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct comments to my current talk page. |
[edit] USRD Inactivity check and news report
Hello, Scott5114. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:
- 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.
- 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) 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] IRC cloak request
I am Scott5114 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/scott5114. Thanks. --—Scott5114↗ 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Interstate 59 in Alabama and Georgia
Why did you split this? Interstate 59 in Louisiana and Mississippi has existed for a while. --NE2 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense to me; we had a workable compromise for states with only a bit. Is there any problem with these merges other than your own apparent desire to fit everything into a rigid mold (no offense intended here)? --NE2 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think a general description like in U.S. Route 50 is preferable for most routes that are long enugh to split. It doesn't make sense to split out only some states. --NE2 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean that I-59 won't be as developed; we shouldn't go "backwards". --NE2 19:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think a general description like in U.S. Route 50 is preferable for most routes that are long enugh to split. It doesn't make sense to split out only some states. --NE2 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you prove that reverting me was necessary? --NE2 21:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Only if you start with the assumption that "Interstate 59 in Louisiana and Mississippi" is not a valid topic, but "Interstate 59 in Mississippi" is. --NE2 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
See Interstate 95 for a counterexample. And of course there's U.S. Route 50, a good article. As I said before, you seem to want to apply a rigid mold to situations that don't call for one. --NE2 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Adopt-a-Highway
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Adopt-a-Highway, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Adopt-a-Highway and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Adopt-a-Highway during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. O (说 • 喝) 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 14
 |
 |
 |
| The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 1, Issue 14 • September 30, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • 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. —O bot (t • c) 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Did you know
 |
On 4 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article # U.S. Route 70 , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Allen3 talk 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Oklahoma Newsletter October 07
 WikiProject Oklahoma's Newsletter |
Your second or third stop for WikiProject Oklahoma News |
 Modest boost in assessed articles during September WikiProject Oklahoma's massive list of unassessed articles got smaller over the month of September, as 45 articles were assessed by bots and editors. Assessments made on August 31 bring the total to 62 assessed articles over the 31-day period. On September 15, BetacommandBot assessed 40 articles from no-class to stub and start class. This bot automatically updates the talk pages of articles included in more than one WikiProject if at least one WikiProject has already assessed the material, bringing each interested WikiProject's ratings into compliance with the assessment. No B-class or higher quality assessments were given out over September, and only a small handful of importance assessments were granted. On August 31, one Low, Mid, and High importance rating was given to three separate articles. Leroy McGuirk was given the lone high-importance rating. Oklahoma categories receive help from Texan TexasAndroid, an administrator, assisted WikiProject Oklahoma by categorizing nearly 100 Oklahoma-related pages on September 24. The additions were made mainly to Tulsa-related pages. "I've done the major cities in Texas in the past, and was thinking about what to do next, and decided to stay relatively close to home for now. Thus OK's big cities got done," TexasAndroid wrote on his user page.  Meet WikiProject Oklahoma's "sub-project" Taskforce Tulsa, a collaboration of editors operating under WikiProject Oklahoma, has been created to increase the scope of Wikipedia's coverage of Tulsa and its surrounding areas. Taskforce Tulsa is many things, but most importantly, it is a way for editors to have a place to put Tulsa-related requests (pictures, article, expansion, collaboration) for other editors interested in Tulsa. News, guidelines, and category trees related to Tulsa articles can easily be accessed and added through the task force's project page. The taskforce is not its own WikiProject. Instead, it works in conjunction with WikiProject Oklahoma to increase the quality and scope of Tulsa-related material. Because of the increased clutter and unnecessary waste of space that would be created with a new WikiProject, editors have opted for a taskforce, or workgroup project. Rather than having a Wikiproject Oklahoma banner as well as a Wikiproject Tulsa banner on most Tulsa-related pages, editors can simply add the Tulsa Taskforce note onto the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner. Cleaner, clearer, and more efficient. In edit mode, such a banner would appear as this: "{{WikiProject Oklahoma|class=FA|importance=Top|tulsa-task-force=yes}}". In other words, simply adding "tulsa-task-force=yes}}" to the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner on an article's talk page would include that article into the Tulsa Task Force. According to an explanation on the taskforce's project page, "The Tulsa Task Force is a 'sub-wikiproject' operating 'beneath' Wikiproject Oklahoma, and is designed to assist it by focusing specifically on Tulsa-related material. Editors who are interested in expanding knowledge of Tulsa on Wikipedia may wish to consider themselves part of Taskforce Tulsa as well as Wikiproject Oklahoma." Interested parties can sign up much like a stand-alone WikiProject. |
|
|
This month's task: Get out of your routine. Make some edits! • Edit next month's newsletter |
|
|
The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved. |
|
This newsletter was delivered to you by Okiefromokla. This is a one-time delivery as to all Wikiproject Oklahoma members to boost interest in the newsletter. In the future, if you would like to receive this newsletter in your talk page, please insert your name in the sign-up list. Thanks!
[edit] Interstate abbreviation
Well, that's what they use on distance signs. But, in general, they leave off the "Route": [1] --NE2 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that they use that on distance signs. But exit lists aren't about distance signs; they're about the signs that appear at the exits, which use shields. We need to provide a link, so we use an abbreviation that the state uses. "I-35" is a common abbreviation; they just don't use it on one particular type of sign. --NE2 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Exit lists
I'm making them from scratch. The lettered routes could be redirects to a list of the routes in each county. I didn't include county and location because I'm "lazy", and it's probably easier for someone familiar with the area to do that. --NE2 08:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, I can certainly go through the MoDOT county maps and add counties and locations while checking the routes. I'll do that with I-35 now. --NE2 09:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I changed Template:Infobox road/MO/link supp to not link; if there is one that has an article, parserfunctions can be used to link in that case. --NE2 09:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Page Avenue (Route D) in St. Louis County was a main road with interchanges even before it was extended as Route 364. There seems to be a major Route M from Barnhart to Otto. I agree that the majority are not major roads though. By the way, you'll be happy to know that I'm adding county and location columns to any Interstate exit lists missing them; I'm on Arkansas now. I just like to do things right, and I'd rather have no columns than ones that guess at where city limits are. --NE2 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- If possible, I use county maps produced by the DOT. If not, or when I need clarification, I use the TIGER/Line maps and Google Maps - the former to see where the border between two cities is and the latter for the outer limits. --NE2 16:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 15
|
|
|
| The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 1, Issue 15 • October 20, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • 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. —O bot (t • c) 23:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Decommissioned"
I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#"Decommissioned". Can we please discuss this calmly? --NE2 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Missouri
Right now I'm just dealing with merging, but there are a number of old maps at [2] and [3] that can easily be referenced. --NE2 07:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Oklahoma Newsletter November 2007
|
WikiProject Oklahoma's Newsletter |
"Your second or third stop for WikiProject Oklahoma News" |
 Oklahoma to be featured on Main Page The time is here, and we knew it was coming. November 16 is Oklahoma's centennial, and, as expected, WikiProject Oklahoma's newest featured article will appear on the Main Page. Oklahoma will be the first article produced by WikiProject Oklahoma featured on the Main Page since October 23, 2005, when Black Seminoles was featured. Jim Thorpe has also been featured, coming on August 13, 2004. Though featured articles for the main page are always selected by Raul654, Oklahoma's 100th anniversary makes its main page appearance a near sure thing. As of early November 6, Oklahoma had 14 nods of support, with none in opposition. All are welcome and encouraged to help spruce up the article as much as possible for its main page debut, as well as lend a hand in anti-vandalism efforts on November 16th. Wikiproject Oklahoma gets a new Wikipedia ad Over 100 articles added to project During the month of October, including Novermber 2, 104 new articles were added to WikiProject Oklahoma. November 2 saw 65 articles added to the wikiproject, all by User:SkiersBot, which adds articles to wikiproject corresponding to tags, such as articles with Oklahoma-related stub tags. |
|
|
This month's task: Anti-vandalism and maintenance efforts for Oklahoma on November 16! |
|
|
The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved. |
|
You have received this newsletter because you signed up for it here. If you would like to discontinue receiving this newsletter, please remove your name from the same list. Thanks! Okiefromoklatalk to me 06:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lists of lists
Hi Scott, you have the following replies to your post at Wikipedia talk:Contents waiting for your further input:
- I believe it would be best to move these to the Portal namespace. Seems like a logical place for them to me, essentially, being a portal through which users access the information.—Scott5114↗ 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- They don't fit within the current definition of what Portals are for (see lead at Portal:List of portals). Though I suppose it is an option to consider. --Quiddity 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Scott, can you explain your logic please? The guideline Wikipedia:Lists specifies that lists and lists of lists are articles. And articles go in the main namespace. If these lists don't belong in the main namespace, what is it about them that is different from other lists that determines this? Whatever logic you use may apply to other lists, so please clarify. What policies or guidelines are you basing your decision on, and how do those apply? The Transhumanist 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Following the AfD of List of overviews by admin Coredesat, I've sent a note to the mailing list, requesting feedback. --Quiddity 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There are also other issues posted on this topic that you may want to take under consideration. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Contents The Transhumanist 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What is meta-content?
You have another reply at Wikipedia talk:Contents:
-
-
-
- What do you mean by "meta-content"? What is it about these lists that is "meta"? Since all lists are lists of links, they all try to help people get where they want to go. What makes these lists different from those? For example, see Lists of philosophy topics and Lists of philosophers. Are those meta too? The Transhumanist 08:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Contents. The Transhumanist 08:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Webster Avenue
It's a major road, and partly carries US 1. --NE2 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since it has aspects of both a street and a road/highway, it fits in both projects, kind of like Pulaski Skyway fits in both roads and bridges. The article needs information on the street both as a through road and as a local street, and so people from both projects should be able to help. --NE2 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 16
|
|
|
| The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 1, Issue 16 • November 17, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • 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. —O bot (t • c) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
--Rschen7754 (T C) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your RfA
Hey there Scott,
I hate to say this, but I would be very surprised if your nomination passes. I do believe that you have the temperment to be an admin. The amount of support that you've received from your buddies from the roads project is testimony to that notion. You've also gained respect in my eye in how you've handled the amount of criticism laid at your doorstep. You've responded with composure and maturity that is required in an admin. I still believe that you lack the experience or proficeincy with policy/guidelines, but you definately have the soft skills required. The experience/proficeincy can be learned and mastered, the softskills are harder to find. So I have every reason to believe that someday you have the potential of being a solid admin.
Thus, I come to you with two offers. You are free to chuck them to the wind and condemn me to the ninth level of hell, but I want to make them to you nonetheless. First, if you are interested, I would be willing to be your admin coach. (I've never done admin coaching before, but think I would do a solid job of it.) Second, even if you don't want me as your admin coach, assuming this RfA fails, I would be interested in potentially being your co-nom next time around. Before I did so, however, you would have to show me a few things:
- That you did go through admin coaching.
- That you are more familiar with wiki-policy in general.
- That you get more experience outside of the roads project. If you take a look at my edit history prior to my RfA it jumped up 3x my normal edit amount. That's because I was getting the requisite experience outside of my safety zone for the RfA. I became much more active in things such RfC, WQA, AFD, GAR, RFA, DYK, etc. Anybody who reviewed my edits would know exactly what I was doing, but it didn't matter because I was addressing potential weakspots. The increased level of activity demonstrated an interest in learning what was necessary to be an admin.
- Participate in some RfAs (or at least monitor them.) Figure out what questions are being asked. Identify what makes a good answer what doesn't. Figure out what people are looking for. Try to figure out why other nominations failed, what went wrong with their candidacy? Are you vulnerable to the same criticism? If so, how do you handle that potential weakness? Try to figure out why some nominations passed, how can you emulate their success?
- Figure out how to fully answer the questions that are asked. In an RfA it is often better to go into more detail than to give short answers. Cover all the bases. Nobody expects you to know all the policies, but show you know how to look them up and then how to analyze them. Practice writing out longer answers where you might cite an example from your own personal history to back them up. Do this not only with the basic questions, but of the one's that you see for other candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, if you want me as an admin coach, I would be happy to oblige. If you are interested in having me as a co-nom at your next RfA (and do the above) then I would be happy to consider it. (If I can do it, then it would become a powerful statement to have your harshest critic in your first RfA becoming a co-nom during your second one.) I will not be offended if you turn one or both of these offers down.
A final thought, you might want to withdraw your nomination now. It is almost certain to fail. As a rule of thumb, each oppose is worth roughly 4 supports---but that is only a rough guideline, the strength of the support/oppose weighs in as well. When the supporters are indicating that the opposes have merit, that's not a good sign. If you end it now, you would do so on your terms and get to do so while saving face. It'll also work in your favor at your next RfA---people would rather see a withdrawn than a failed nom.Balloonman (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Does your response on my page mean that you are interested in my becoming your coach? If so, the first step would be to create a coaching page. That is usually, just a sub-page off your main page called /Admin Coaching. Go ahead and create that page and we could begin. Create it off of your main page User:Scott5114/Admin_coaching (I'm going to bed now, so won't be responding after this.)Balloonman (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't participate in your RFA but I think it was probably right for you to withdraw at that stage. Note that although there were many opposes, all the contributions seemed positive in that they recognised your many areas of strength. The characteristic generosity of Balloonman in his above offer is testament to the fact that the community sees you as an administrator in the future. If I can help in any way please let me know, and feel assured that Balloonman will steer you on the correct course. Very Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 08:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good call there. Try and become more involved in XFD discussions, further familiarize yourself with BLP, and your next RfA should go better. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suresh Oberoi
thanks for your helpPreetikapoor0 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WT:ELG
I read this rather controversial discussion about the exit lists for roads in California at WT:ELG. But I'm still not sure, should we still go with postmiles with county and statewide mileage? Or did you decide on just county or statewide? AL2TB Gab or Tab 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Price Is Right
Any word on a TPIR wikiproject? --Son (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, first thing's first. Join Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Game Shows. Once we get it up and running, then we can decide whether to approach WP:TV and fold into it as a task force or remain independent as a WikiProject. I, personally, would rather remain independent. I'll go out and recruit some people and we'll go from there. --Son (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Interstate shields
Then which site you found from Kansas still generating state shield? Error is usually only found on few shield only. Like over this summer I found one nuetral shield in East Oakland area. Still in California the last revision of state shield is 2007. You said they post at least 2 recent state shield on Kansas that makes me thought they are made on purpose not on accident. The unique neutral I-580 shield is just made on accident. Like The CA-134 shield is paint white background in North Hollywood is made on accident. Then when is the last install KS shield on Kansas?Did Oklahoma as well make new state shield after 2006? --Freewayguy^Comm 90 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tennessee Subproject
Tennessee State Routes subproject has been created. Feel free to browse, join, etc. Pepper6181 (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion review of Category:Articles needing an infobox
Hi there! You participated in the CfD of Category:Articles needing an infobox. You may be interested in the DRV I opened at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 12#Category:Articles needing an infobox. Thank you! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arkansas and Maryland
Seems like Arkansas and Maryland is still generating state shields. Or maybe ARKDOT AND MDDOT no longer specifies state name in state document or those state shield is made in error. Well the map shade those states blue. I think in Maryland they suppose to stop generating state shield. The newer Interstate 370 does not have state name on the shield. But Interstate 97 made in 2005 for some reason still print state name shield. In Arkansas I-30 and Interstate 430 still have state name shield. Barely any neutral shields there --Freewayguy (Comm 90) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CfD for taxobox categories
I just wanted to notify everyone that participated in the original CfD and the deletion review that there is a new CfD to reverse the proposed changes to the taxobox categories. Justin chat 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17
|
|
|
| The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 1, Issue 17 • December 15, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Triple crown
Your Majesty, may you wear the crowns well. Keep up the fine work and happy holidays. DurovaCharge! 04:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Routebox Legend
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Routebox Legend, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Routebox Legend and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Routebox Legend during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 04:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Auto trails
The category is "Oklahoma road transport articles", so they belong. As for state maintenance... the Meridian Highway, for instance, was State Highway 2. --NE2 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation Cabal
Hello. I saw a request for mediation at the Mediation Cabal that has you listed as a party, and would like to mediate the case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-28 WikiProject U.S. Roads. I hope that you will allow me to mediate your dispute peacefully, and that the problem can be resolved in a satisfactory manner. Best regards, Keilana(recall) 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for arbitration
A request for arbitration that you are a party to has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#NE2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA article
Tell me when you want to have the OK H9 assessed. I can assess this early. miranda 07:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pass along to IRC...
WP:RFR. Back later tonight. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Erie CRs
Eh, sorry about that, I had trouble getting the numbers to the right font, so I used what I could. Anyway, I won't be on IRC for some time, so you've got my permission here.Mitch32contribs 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Button copy
Why are you replacing the I-10 sign with ones that are blurrier and harder to see the button copy on? Please reply on Talk:Button copy. --NE2 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "USRD B-class standards"
Where are these standards? I only see the transcluded table on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment, which is lower than what Rschen7754 is using, since that table allows for missing sections. --NE2 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a page that lists these, and if not, can we make one so that we can point someone to them? I note that SR 15 still fails, since it lacks a complete history. --NE2 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Assessment --NE2 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1
|
|
|
| The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 2, Issue 1 • January 19, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Mitch32contribs 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oklahoma State Highway 95
|
On 23 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oklahoma State Highway 95, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TPiR yolanda.jpg
Discussion moved here to allow for more discussion. -Nv8200p talk 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The IFD process does not require that the nominator leave a note on the talk page, however an ifdc tag should be put on the image in the article, which I have done this time. -Regards Nv8200p talk 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] neutral vs. state sheilds
What you mean by the interstate shields they post in Ind. is never right. Was it because long time ago, there was no rule on whether the interstate shields should be nuetral or normal state shield. They post out a state shield on I-89 in Vermont on July 2007, that is obvious error. Also the Prv state shileds like VT 289 has made in error on SR shields. It suppose to have green text with square white bg-but made is oval shape black text instead. I thought Minnesota hasn't been doing things right either, because it uses nuetral shields in sign drawing but they over 2007 post at least 5 more normal state shields. I notice many places is doing this, ex. of Idaho, and I don't know about Utah.They said Georgia begun nuetralizing interstate shields in 1999 and no longer instal state shields but how come I still see many state shields post in July 2007 from Interstate-Guide tooken outside. I thought West Virginia and Arkansas is mainly state shields (Or they never follow the state doc).--Freewayguy (Meet) 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] West Virginia state shields
I'm trying to find the interstate shield sign drawing. Can you find the page for me? Because {{Infobox Interstate/Intrastate}} uses normal state shields for West Vrginiga, the only state shield we have is .svg/25px-I-81_(WV).svg.png){kind=small}
. What about Arkansas, the desktop on my wallpaper is still fully state shields.--Freewayguy (Meet) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
West Virginia might be post out more state shields, in 2007. Minnesota dont print state name shields on sig-drawing but some new ones still use state-name shields. Is tis an error or not?--Freewayguy (Meet) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 2
|
|
|
| The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 2, Issue 2 • 17 February 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AAHighways
Althouhg this is not a reliable source you can still check on it to check sources. You click on the state province (in green link), then you will see if they comply with DOT. Kansas should definitely be blue state on the map at that site because the state elements making the state name mandatory on interstate shields. Also on the blue the number must be centerlize and only overwrite half of the blue background on the bottom.--Freewayguy (Meet) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This image is post in December 2003. This is obvious that the shields is less than 15 month old. This I don't know if it is an error or not because there is a white background after the interstate shields, and also I think Virginia no longer uses state shield in document after 1995 revision. Any newer specific state name shields I dont know if it is an error or not. I know like the neutral shields in California or Missouri it is definitely an error. In Oklahoma the last update on state shields is June 2006, I think the previous 2 documents did not use state shields, I bet that's why the state names in Oklahoma City is missing. The last revision of California state shields is September 28, 2006.--Freewayguy (Meet) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting scenerio, This was post in February 2, 2006 this is obvious that the shields is oly like 18 month old. I dont know if the shields comply or is an error because I dont think they suppose to have white backgrounds after the interstat shields. I thought Washington long no longer specifies state shields in state document but that I-5 picture made like Feb. 2006 print state name shields agin. Washington pt 2 ore state name shields on the I-5/90 interchange in 2006 I think. I'm not sure if it is an error.--Freewayguy (Meet) 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
In California I know the neutral shields in central Valley is an erro. I think few years ago they didnt do so good job. I thouhgt the neutral shields in Oklahoma City is old ones. I thouhgt newer ones actually have specific state name, and also whats a contractor maker shield? And also is the new specific state shields (made like 2006) in Washington an erro because the DOT wants neutral shields. Also you told me last update of OK normal state name shields is June 2006, maybe the old state shields is last version of DOT drawing.--Freewayguy (Meet) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who cares about shields that much? Seriously, you're wasting time obsessing over state neutered shields. Please do something more productive. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Then how come some places they use state shields like Minnesota and Maryland when the state document obviously ask nuetral shields? Interstate-Guide only lies alot--Freewayguy (Meet) 20:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of x highways
I am sorry for including that derogatory summary in one of the edits. I prodded them because, currently (atleast in the music field) wikipedia is on an anti list drive. List of x bands are being AfD'd every now and then. And I came across a list of highways, which IMO was very unnecessary. Well considering that the lists are actually DAB pages, I get your point. Thank you, Weltanschaunng 06:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inkscape
Do you know how to use Inkscape? If so, how do you change the defualt size of an SVG image? (I'm having trouble on it.) ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image deletion
Gee, thanks for tagging some of my images for deletion; I uploaded it by mistake, so sorry about that... Blake Gripling (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why wasn't I given a chance to retort?
Scott5114...You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/School related user templates rather quickly. It was my understanding that there was to be at least 7 days of discussion about this. I didn't have a chance to sway opinions of the responders and to see if there was anyone who agreed with me. I have faced similar challenges before, but in the end most of the initial keepers changed their minds to delete. I am positive that a lot of those userboxes are malformed and some unused or have very few transclusions. This is part of a project of mine to bring back some sanity to the userboxes by merging as many similar ones that I can so that there are fewer of them in an effort to reverse the userfication of userboxes and put them back in template space where they belong. - LA @ 07:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Er, lady aleena, did you look at the consensus? This was a clear case of Snow. In less than two days there were 35 !votes in favor of speedy closing, plus previous discussions on the subject. You are free to take this to DVR if you wish, but I can pretty much assure you that they will support Scott's decision.Balloonman (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question on your RFA
I have left a question on your RFA (regarding WP:BLP. --Ozgod (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Just Touching Base
You might want to review IP user 65.65.230.53 We have both supplied ample warning, and I am reccomending to the vandal unit that the IP be blocked from subsequent account creation. Seems like we've got a vandal with a bad sense of humor. Changing redirects, causing possible litigation, and using crude humor to the effect of 9/11. InvisibleDiplomat (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Meixco and Missouri
You say Missouri still uses specific state shields in state document, however I couldn't find the specs in MUTCD website. I dont see Missouri put out this many new shields last few months, why you say Missouri's seem like neutral shields to you recently?Did Missouri miss alot of state names on interstate made last four years to now. You say the new shields in Kansas City was I-35 lacking state name. Why they did this? Or because extra shields from other states move in. Does New Mexico still use state shields in state document. I couldnt find the specs but the sheilds was upload in August 31, 2007. Are there such thing as anti-contractor, because in many states I actually find state-specific is actually newer than neutral shields, and state-specific is post years after the older neutral shields, could it be anti-contractor. Maybe some state document uses neutral shields for no space for state name to be there, if they post a specific state name over the state document would it be an error? Because you say anything doesnt comply with the spces is automatic errors. I thought alot of neutral shields is taken out from Okalhoma, due mostly orange detour signs, and some neutral shields was old so the exchange it with new state-name shield in 2004. Doesnt Missouri also have the contractor shield issue generating alot of neutral shields last 5 years or neutral shields in Missouri is not that many.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Let me be the first to congratulate you
Your RfA was supposed to end 30 minutes ago, the current tally is 61/0/3... thus, I think it is safe to say... give this boy his mop!Balloonman (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- now it's official beat the 'cratBalloonman (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats from me as well, man, you deserve it. (yes, I just congratulated you on IRC, but everything sounds more official on wiki :P) --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Congratulations
I'm pleased to inform you that, consensus having been achieved, you're now an administrator. You might consider browsing through the reading list if you're curious about your new tools. Someone has also written Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, which I have not read, though its phony personality ("Congratulations on your successful nomination for adminship!") is not encouraging. Your having made it this far attests to a certain measure of wisdom and good sense. Don't lose track of it in the chaos of administrating. Well done, and I wish you the very best of luck in your future editing. Regards — Dan | talk 07:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations from me too...even though I remained neutral, it was a gut feeling, no offense? Anyway, congrats. SpencerT♦C 13:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your RfA
- Your welcome. :) A Raider Like Indiana (talk)
Same from me. And: Congratulations! --Abrech (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
