User talk:SPUI

Template:Project U.S. Roads User:SPUI/Curpsbot

I've decided to try limiting myself to one revert per day per article. We'll see how it turns out. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff that may need reverting

1964 state highway renumbering (Washington) List of Washington State Routes Category:Washington highways Interstate 75 Rickenbacker Causeway List of Florida State Roads

FUCK YOU WIKIPEDIA

That didn't take long. Jimbo's fucking up the article space now. He has jumped the shark something fierce.

Probation violations

I am blocking you for 24hours for disrupting DRV--Doc ^ask? 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that was disrupting it, by removing an active discussion. Jimbo is fucking up the encyclopedia. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this do you not understand?

01:40, 22 February 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "Brian Peppers" (We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it)

You can write about Brian Peppers on any website that will let you, but the guy who runs this website won't let you. Why not? That's his business. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is too big to be run by one man. I question not his legal right to run it but his "moral" right. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I wrote in response to another guy who made a fuss about "Jimbocracy".

GFDL means that you can download the whole encyclopedia (see here), install the software (it's easy, I'm running a copy on my laptop) and just open the thing up. What you do with the site is up to you. Jimbo can't touch you as long as you comply with the license.

So if you wish, you're free to take your contributions, and mine, and those of everybody who has ever contributed to Wikipedia. But this particular website has its own rules, and its own management.

There is nothing to stop you taking the entire content and (if you can convince them) every single editor, and giving them a new site that Jimbo doesn't run. Jimbo would be left high and dry. So why not give it a go?

So, you have a legal and moral right to the encyclopedia. If Jimbo's site isn't the right one for you, take it and go with my blessing. --Tony Sidaway 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know full well that it's not that easy. There is a collaborative nature to Wikipedia that would not exist, as no one would move to the new site. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the reason no one would move to the new site is because most actually either agree with Jimbo or (the great majority) don't give a flying fuck about the issue? If some issue was really opposed by a significant amount of editors, it would be easy for a fork to get critical mass; that's a great sword of Damocles over Jimbo's head. --cesarb 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one gives a fuck until they get fucked. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight. There was a 2:1 consensus to keep the new article, but Jimbo deleted it anyway, citing the older articles which were rightfully speedily deleted as garbage, and ignored the most recent consensus to keep the valid rewrite of the article which contained sources and was written in an open, encyclopedic tone? Silensor 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Me A Favor

SPUI, remind me to comment on this later on how fucked up Wikipedia's inner workings are right now. I'm taking a break. Karmafist 13:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadcruft?

Thanks for your comment on my talk page regarding the road numbering system in Hong Kong. I just wonder how did you come to think that I'm a roadcruft? Deryck C. 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Sorry, SPUI, I know it's a bad time, but do you have a source for Image:Cartery.jpg? It's a fascinating picture and I'd like to preserve it. It's probably not public domain, but it wouldn't be hard to make a fair use rationale if we had the source. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. "The Frances Loeb Library is unaware of any copyright in the images in this collection." They have no further information. I say if Harvard and the LOC can use it with a {{fairold}}-style license, so can we.

I may have also come across this image in a planning document for the Artery, which may have been at MIT's Rotch Library. Somehow I have a date of 1930, which would put it in "Report on a thoroughfare plan for Boston. Prepared by the City Planning Board. Robert Whitten, consultant." by the "Boston (Mass.). City Planning Board.", "HE356.5.B6.A35 1930". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect--I'm glad you found it. I've updated the image page and left the tag for now, though I'll snoop around a little more and see if there isn't precedent to declare it public domain. What makes me uncomfortable about the tag is that it's too high resolution for fair use, so by using it as it is, we're kind of assuming it's public domain anyway. Which I think is fine, really. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Chick Bowen 06:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note here that low resolution is not essential to a fair use claim. It is but one aspect, one point of argument. I'd suspect, with the date and the source, that no copyright renewal was ever performed and thus the document entered the public domain at some point since. However, proving a negative is tough, especially for images which may have been published in more than one place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give a fuck

And the best way that you can actually change things is by toning it down a little. Are some people acting like total pricks? Yes. Are some of those people admins? Yes. Is there another option open to Jimbo in the short term? Probably not.

Right now the "middle managment" of wikipedia is running off the rails. Well, a few of them anyway. All the pointless bullshit over the last couple of months is just a symptom of a very few bad apples stirring things up. You know, like you.

Because we can't fix the plumbing while the house is on fire. So if you could please not get yourself blocked again in a day or two, stick around and try to just stay unblocked that would kick arse. If we could stop fighting over stupid stuff like userboxes and Brain Peepers, things which are so fucking trivial I want to poke out my eyes, we might be able to fix some other issues.

brenneman ^{T}^{L} 05:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is Jimbo crossing the line into deleting articles "fucking trivial"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The action isn't trivial, but the article is. Really, out of the million articles we have, or even out of the thirteen good ones, this one means nothing. Just like any one particular user box doesn't mean anything. But when pushed by continuing stupidity all around, whose side do you expect Jimbo to come down on?
We've got a classic "freedom fighter" cycle going on here. A few people like things fucked up. Some of those people because it gives them an excuse to use sysop powers to bash heads, some of them because they get to throw userbox petrol bombs. As long as there keeps being an "enemy" than there will keep being a problem. Use the judo-Ghandi approach, man, and quit giving people targets.

brenneman ^{T}^{L} 06:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no more trivial than any other. Someone seeking information on a "notable" internet meme should be able to find it here. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content is the house on fire. And Aaron, you're the fucking problem here man. Quit pretending you are any part of the solution. Grace Note 12:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content isn't deleting itself, you know, someone has to push the button.

Grace, I'm well aware that you seem unable to look beyond my deletion of the Brian Peppers article. I'd encourage you to actually read what I said about why I did it, note that I made notices in all the appropiate places when I did so, and have continued to actually talk and listen ever since then. I've tried at every juncture to get people to actually talk (not vote!) about the issues.
I'd also encourage you to have a look at my non-admin actions since promoted, to note how many articles I've removed speedy tags from. I'd also like to think that there is a place for people who disagree but can do so reasonably. I've never made any bones about my personal feelings about this article or user boxes, but if you don't pay any attention to my unflagging defence of discussion and mutual respect, that's not my problem.

brenneman ^{T}^{L} 12:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and everyone will get the chance to sink the boot into me in a couple of months anyway. I promised I'd open a self-RfC on my three month promotion anniversary and step down if I'd lost the public trust. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I've lifted your block for now. Please read WP:AN/I#SPUI_blocked_for_probation_violation before proceeding. They'll just block you again if you annoy them any. Haukur 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HHOF

I don't pretend to be an expert on hockey or anything even vaguely related to sports, but could you perhaps explain what's so inflammatory about this one? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a userbox. Doesn't T1 effectively apply to all userboxes? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUN or something --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Any Case

Don't let the fuckers get you down. Only you can get you down, the fuckers just give you a push. I'm glad that you're back, Wikipedia would be alot worse off without all you add to it, in my opinion. Don't let some dipshits steal your contributions away from everybody else. Karmafist 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum to discuss Wikipedia

I don't know if you've been invited yet, so let me hereby invite you to the Wikipedia Review forum to discuss Wikipedia. It has just moved to its new site, at http://www.wikipedia review.com/ (fucking spam blacklist --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 02:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) and your voice would be welcome. I might not agree with the whole GNAA stance, or some of your actions, but you're a critic just the same, and I think that you could contribute. If you are already posting under an alias, then ignore this. :). User:Zordrac 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snorlax --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error on your userpage

"This user page has not been censored in any way." Don't think this is true anymore. Ashibaka tock 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California State Highway 17

Please, let's not play this game again. You need to establish consensus on the talk page before moving this article. Nohat 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 15

Your continued deletion of the infobox on California State Route 15 could be considered vandalism. Unless you can justify this activity, please cease. - Chadbryant 07:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because California doesn't like you doing that doesn't mean the Interstates do, either. Please read WP:BRD before you go recklessly changing I-95 exit list, especially since the article survived AfD this week. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routeboxca

You sure you nominated the right template? The only edit by you in the history is when you placed {{tfd}} on it. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see; the template you modified was a meta-template of the template you nominated. Bizarre. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of this sure seems spiteful to me since your RB is being readily rejected by the wikiproject...JohnnyBGood 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read, WP:CIV, and WP:Infobox. One applies to your behavior, the other does not agree with your reasoning against the infoboxes.JohnnyBGood 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Countries, Elements, Chemical compounds, Greek gods, Languages, Digital Cameras, locomotives and many others are just as long if not longer. The only CA highway ones that are possibly too long are CA 1 and 99. And that can be fixed by limiting the list to major interchanges.JohnnyBGood 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to respond to that last comment. If you're going to discourse in that crude and ill mannered way then your opinion is worth nothing to the project.JohnnyBGood 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how WP:CIV deals with it directly. I suggest you read it.JohnnyBGood 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also says that your point will likely be ignored by most users who come across it if you are vulgar or profane... And for the record, I'm not belittling you, it's a constuctive criticsm, one I believe has been brought to you many times before and obviously ignored to no benefit to you.JohnnyBGood 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, Maybe not... but it'll be had to find out if no one is listening don't you think? JohnnyBGood 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your edit since I don't think the template qualifies for speedy deletion for it's divisiveness. Thanks. - Bobet 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystified by El Camino Real, East Bay branch

Do you understand this? I can't figure out what this East Bay branch is, or where it is supposed to go. (It seems to include sections of San Pablo Ave. through Oakland and Berkeley.) The California Highways site does nothing to clarify this (not to mention that they sound like idiots—"the El Camino Real", indeed!) How in the world is this considered part of the Sonoma-to-San Diego route? I can see why you're having difficulties editing this.

By the way, I must say I like your attitude, and share parts of it. This can be discussed later (or not). --ILike2BeAnonymous 04:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "red link" (language faux pas); doesn't that just beg for someone to come along and create Yet Another Spurious Article? Jus' wondering ... --ILike2BeAnonymous 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I comment on you

Rschen raises some valid points about reverting and civility, here. I don't think you're violating your probation, but surely it'd be better to avoid such disputes if at all possible, lest the arbcom start tacking on civility parole and reversion limitations for good measure. As regards disputes in the scope of WP:NC/NH, I'd imagine it would be preferable to wait for some consensus on these issues, first. Alai 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like to see you (and all contributors) a bit more civil, I must say, "Oh, eat my penis" may be the funniest incivil comment I've ever seen. Ral315 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hi! I just noticed one of my pics was nominated by you. Thanks! Only took me almost a year to notice! (and that was by a fluke also!). --Rebroad 21:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SG rail

You kind of broke this turning it back into using a metatemplate. Formerly optional arguments are now required and show ugly in pages that didn't supply them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed it: templates with defaults on the metatemplate need to have default arguments of nothing provided from the calling template. Otherwise, an undefined value is passed as a string of the template name with squigglies around it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-95 exit list

All you pointed out was that it should be split, not that any exit lists already existed. If you had something to add to the conversation then, why didn't you? —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said the article "should be split". Had you said that it had already been split across—I was going to quick-count them, but the mileage list is overlaying the TOC right now—x number of states, I would've changed my vote to split/redirect to the main article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the TOC and length table overlaps, that's happening in Firefox. —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-95 - blank row at the bottom of the length table?

Is there a reason you restored the blank row to the bottom of the length table? It's unattractive. Was it meant to have the totals in it? —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map redraw request

For Image:Putnam Division map.png. On the Yonkers (Getty Square) Branch, there should be a station named "Mosholu" between the junction at Van Cortlandt and Caryl. See for instance Joe Brennan. There should also be a line running a little ways west from Yorktown Heights to Mohansic Lake (lasted only six years; abandoned when proposed Mohansic State Hospital was cancelled). You can see what I believe are bits of the grading here if you look closely. Much appeciated. Choess 07:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I'm not seeing any bits of grading in the historic map. Typically, since they were done from surveys, not aerial photographs, features didn't show up accidentally. The only thing I can see that resembles an abandoned railbed is this little bit of road. Switch the Theme to Image and it seems to cross the lower tip of Crom Pond. RussNelson 05:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Railroad Map

Were you working on a New Jersey railroad map? The PNG seems to be missing in action. I'm considering doing the same thing for New York. See New York Railroad Routes or Railroads of New York State. First I need an enumeration of all of the railroads. How did you arrive at yours for New Jersey? RussNelson 05:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VA 895

"Federal statute 23 USC 129(a)(1)(A) indicates that federal funds may not be used for an Interstate toll-road. Thus, toll-roads using no federal funds and freeways of any funding source are eligible for Interstate designation, but toll-roads that use federal funds are not. In this case, $9.28 million of the preliminary engineering (out of a total $324 million cost) was funded by the federal government, and the project ultimately opened as a toll road, disqualifying the road as a bearer of an Interstate shield."

Therefore, VDOT used federal funds for the project, no matter what it was for, they used it. You can read that and see that it's not I-895 because they used federal funds, and opened a toll road. --MPD01605 05:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of a kind

You are one of a kind! --Thorpe | talk 20:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen

Learn how to meditate man!--Jondel 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route moves

Spui, can you please explain why you keep moving California State Routes? We've already established that doing so breaks the disambig and search.Gateman1997 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on the technicals, but rschen would know. Also there is consensus and the WP to consider. Both of which are against these moves thus far but discussion is ongoing. Wait until the discussion has closed please before you do anything.Gateman1997 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?

Are you ok with this California State Route 85?JohnnyBGood 22:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Metro Map

SPUI, you are so good at making maps for the transportation articles. [1] So, if you do get a minute, can you replace the Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png Moscow Metro map with a public domain version. The one that is on there now is a copy vio. Thank you so much for your other contributions and thank you in advance for this map. :) --michael180 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California)

Ahem... I wonder if you might be able to find time to read WP:3RR? I've given you 12h [2], in case you're busy William M. Connolley 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A birthday present for you

02:00, 9 March 2006, David Gerard (Talk) blocked Gateman1997 (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (sockpuppetry (JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997; email me with which is "real", the other is gone))
02:00, 9 March 2006, David Gerard (Talk) blocked JohnnyBGood (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (sockpuppetry (JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997; email me with which is "real", the other is gone))

I mean, I don't know when your birthday is ... - David Gerard 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But at least you figured out that Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood have the same one. Well there's something. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Trolley Maps

I was just wondering a few things about you old trolley route maps on Commons. First, how come you mark the Watertown and post-Heath Street E branch as "still active" in your 1940 vs Now map? Second, are the numbers you give actual route numbers from back in the day or are they just the numbers of the current bus replacements... If they were the original route numbers it would be interesting to know that 90%+ of those route numbers are still in use as the bus numbers.

State Route 15 (California)

You tagged this page for speedy deletion, with the reason "So California State Route 15 can be moved here, as the name is "State Route 15", not "California State Route 15". Gateman1997 edited this specifically to prevent such a move.". Unfortunately, CSD:G6 allowing for such deletions requires that the move be uncontroversial, and since someone disagrees, this doesn't qualify. You must list this request on WP:RM instead.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that you can move pages onto a redirect page. Stifle 17:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateman1997 specifically edited and then reverted this page to prevent moving over it. In my view, that is very dickish. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that. However, I specifically can't speedy articles to facilitate a move unless it's non-controversial. You will need to take it to WP:RM. Stifle 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City Names

I see from some of your recent edits to some road pages that you are putting in links and then redirects as "City Name (ST)". This is not according to accepted WP guidelines (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#North_America) which is "City Name, State Name". I know you are an advocate of the parenthesis disambiguation technique, and I agree with you basically, but this is NOT one of the uses for it. --Censorwolf 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see you are making redirects, but they are unecessary, since the only reason to create the re-directed articles is so you can link to them from another page. It would be better to link to the proper, aka real, page. Just follow the guidelines when you add your links and you won't need to create the redirected artcles. --Censorwolf 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to create a disambiguation page and a redirect when the city page already exists as a properly named page just like every other city page on WP. Are you now going to put a dismbiguation page for every city page that exists in WP, or are you just working on CA for now?

All of those pages you are creating as "City Name (ST)" should be deleted and the links to those pages from other articles (if any) should be replaced with the proper WP article name. What you are doing is meaningless and obviously a solo mission against WP guidelines. What's worse, you have apparently created most of these pages simply because you referenced them on Talk:Interstate 280 (California). In one case Palo Alto (CA), there is already a disambiguation page Palo Alto (disambiguation). Please refer to the guidelines above and unless you can justify a reason for an exception, stick to them. "there is nothing wrong with linking to redirects" is not valid reason for creating one. --Censorwolf 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This shit isn't worth a response. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CA Highway Moves

I disagree with your nonconsensus moves of the entire CA Highway system. Within the next few hours I intend to take action to rectify this (not sure how yet).

But to your credit I do acknowledge your questioning of the sockpuppetry. It is good to know that at least someone is standing up for what is right. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then there was a lot of consensus. Here there is not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry... I had just joined wiki when that happened so I wasnt really sure... okay well there was no consensus against your page moving then. There is now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rschen7754 on this one. This topic is still under debate so all these moves you are doing are in bad faith. You appear to have no respect for the voting process since you have not waited for the results and especially since it is titling away from being decided in your favor. These moves should all be reverted. If the consensus is to use the names you prefer then we will make the moves at that time. --Censorwolf 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Island Freeway

Why did you redirect Terminal Island Freeway to only State Route 103 (California)? I get sources that the freeway's southern portion is suppose to be signed as State Route 47 (California) as it heads toward the Vincent Thomas Bridge [3]. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your merge for the sole reason that the freeway consists of two routes. Using your same logic, Santa Ana Freeway would merge into Interstate 5 even though the freeway technically is signed as both the 5 and U.S. Highway 101. Ventura Freeway would merge into State Route 134 (California) even though it is signed as both the 134 and the 101. And Hollywood Freeway would only merge into State Route 170 (California). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I may have been picky, but here in California, the Southern California freeway names have historically been more popular and more well-known than their actual state routes. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

highway 85 rename

There was a very clear vote to leave this article titled as it was. Please don't unilaterally decide to ignore completed votes. I have put the page back to the agreed-upon name. Elf | Talk 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was voted to not rename to "A" doesn't in any way mean that everyone thinks it is OK to rename to "B". Elf | Talk 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you choose to revert the routebox against consensus too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York

We've asked time and time again, stop making controversial page moves with no consensus! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except at WP:NC/NH we have a (narrow) consensus. But still one. Until the matter is decided though please don't move the pages. Even if it is decided against your point of view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eat my penis. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, a comment like that that could be taken the wrong way. Let's all be nice. -Will Beback 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, are you a homophobe? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub template should go after categories

In this edit you moved the stub template before the categories. This should not be done, as the stub category is less important than the others. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How very odd. Further up may talk page you will see flamage because stubs went to the end, which is what has always happened if the "sort" option is on. I shall investigate further. Rich Farmbrough 18:42 11 March 2006 (UTC).

I've found the reason, the template was "California State Highway Stub" instead of "California-State-Highway-stub" I'm fixing about 100 pages, and moving the sutbs to the end. In at leat one case [4] it has been in the wrong position since day 1. Rich Farmbrough 12:39 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Comment from Mike Dillon

Placement of the visible content of the stub template is more important than the ordering of the categories, so I disagree. If I see changes moving stub templates below categories, I will move the stub templates to the bottom of the article content. Thanks for the note, but I won't be following your preference. Mike Dillon 04:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urls

Ooops, I try to avoid that sort of thing, and succeed 99.9% of the time. Thanks for teling me though. Rich Farmbrough 19:15 11 March 2006 (UTC).

I thought you meant part of the URL. These refs, are very tricky, because they are scattered around the article, but they to look and work much better than the old style. Is this version acceptable? If not, revert if you wish.. Rich Farmbrough 19:27 11 March 2006 (UTC).

I-95 Exit List (2)

Talk:I-95 exit list

Med Cabal

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion

Do not remove other user's votes on the matter. It is considered vandalism and is against policy.JohnnyBGood 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to WP:AN/I. Do not modify my vote again.JohnnyBGood 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles River

Thanks for #Crossings. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State pages

Please don't create separate state pages for each Interstate per WP:IH. If you got consensus I wouldn't care so much. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 16 in Georgia? Interstate 78 in New York? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? Those links get redirected to Interstate 16 and Interstate 78 respectively. Seem to work fine. --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care about redirects, but I don't want someone to create the worthless articles described above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worthless content on Interstates?

Could we possibly put it up for other wikipedians to debate instead of just deleting? Or would you prefer it be moved onto the I-64 page? (Personally, I think the Long Distance signage is rather pointless as well, but nonetheless think it should remain).

Any opinion?

--Mkamensek 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK...I have an option. Create an article called Interstate System Oddities and move all the content there?

--Mkamensek 00:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New CA Interstate Shields

Is it possible to have these shields use Series D for the INTERSTATE text. Most signs in California use this instead of Series C. I know this is a minor point, but just to keep the shield looking as close to the real things as possible. Joydawg 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, fuck it. I just looked at the CA spec and they use both Series C and Series D for different sizes, even though probably 90% of the real shields use D, so I see no point in sweating the spacing (there's great variation in spacing on the real shields). The numbering looks fine and the colors match the MUTCD ones, which are both more important. Are you making each one by hand? Joydawg 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Hiway

When you have a chance, will you please take a look at this one? I started it, but I feel that it needs some attention. Your magic may be just what it needs. Thanks! Mark Vaoverland 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

Hey, if you could help me figure out the correct license for that image, that would be amazing. The message from the copyright holder is on the talk page. Let me know if there's anything else I should do. Thanks --MPD01605 13:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Congratulations!!! I hereby award a spinning Barnstar to User:SPUI for his dedication in editing articles related to California State Highways. Keep up the good work, and don't let the crits from others let you down. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

Thanks for experimenting with the page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to compromise: These are the pages (at their names specified by the WikiProjects) that have been moved to some variant of "State Route x (California)" without consensus. (Although I really shouldn't have to here, it's vandalism). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Can we agree to not move any more CA pages until the mediation case goes through? Otherwise I'll have to protect or go to WP:RPP since now it's just making a mess. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until we come to an agreement through mediation, that is. I mean, why can't we just have a truce until an agreement? Otherwise we make a mess of things (redirects, wrong links, histories, etc) and get ourselves blocked by admins. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you;re not willing to truce then? It would be a lot easier on all of us- we could actually get back to content. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MUTCD-compliant speed limit sign SVG

Can you make a MUTCD-compliant speed limit sign for Speed limits in the United States? The current sign could use improvement. Thanks! Nova SS 03:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CASH

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions, or move on to something like Uncyclopedia.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mom's getting old. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both people here in the Wikipedia community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as vandalism and you could get blocked from editing Wikipedia for it. You might not get another warning before having a block imposed, so be careful and be serious from now on.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all good with the WP:CASH shortcut, but the whole thing about profit could be misleading for some people. After discussing this with CVU, it's best if you just hold off on the "profit" joke, at least on the project page. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 07:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US State Highways

Because that article was appropriate for that template. It was a list, and therefore, should incorporate the link to the other state lists. J.Steinbock 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you in that sense. However, it is a system which should include interstates and highways. Because you are the editor of the article, you may delete the template. : ). J.Steinbock 06:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

I don't know what's gotten into you, but the behavior is unacceptable, so --

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of 1 week. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... blocked for what? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks. I think your responses to Rschen7754's messages were thoroughly unacceptable, and in addition, your edits that added "profit" to Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways can't be construed as anything but vandalism. If you have good explanations for your behavior, please go ahead and give them. --Nlu (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you call vandalism I call having fun. What you call a personal attack I call a your mom joke. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not amused. The request to unblock is denied. --Nlu (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you're not the only admin here. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if other admins want to review what I did here, that's fine. In fact, I already asked for that myself (on WP:AN/I). Meanwhile, the unblock request is (again) denied, and your talk page is going to be protected in a second. --Nlu (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not amused either, this request for unblock is denied -- Tawker 08:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No is No, continued placement of unblock on this page will result in the page being protected -- Tawker 08:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, I've reviewed your edits and this block is warranted, please wait it out, Wikipedia is not a place for jokes and you have engaged in this sort of behaviour before. Please stop -- Tawker 08:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this a little late. If you get blocked in the future for a joke that doesn't break 3RR, feel free to send me an e-mail and I'll review whether the block was a good idea. Ashibaka tock 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're unblocked

Your block was harsher than what was needed here, IMO, so I have unblocked you. Now, please, please don't make me look like a fool by immediately slapping more jokes on the road portal. Truly, JDoorj a m Talk 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had already stopped a while before I was blocked; I have no intent to restore the "profit".

03:39, 19 March 2006 Brian0918 blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (the 2 things he did don't warrant a 1 week block)

03:39, 19 March 2006 Brian0918 unblocked SPUI (contribs) (blocking for less)

02:32, 19 March 2006 Nlu blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Hopefully I'm not getting into a wheel war here -- but behavior today is unacceptable, and 1 week seems to be a good block length)

I'm not seeing your unblock - did you misspell it? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block was shortened

Please stop placing ubblock notices as they are disruptive -- Tawker 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG subway bullets

I've created a set of SVG subway bullets. I only uploaded 1 so far. Please check out my fair use rationale and let me know what you think. Also note that rather than going by the colors on the current GIFs, I'm eyeballing them. (Those colors are just bad conversions of the CMYK colors, so they're desaturated and don't look like they appear on the signage.) If you think this is a good idea, I can send/upload all the images to get feedback. – flamurai (t) 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, are there any historical bullets (in the same style)I should make? e.g. 9, K, and retired diamond services? I don't know the subway history that well. – flamurai (t) 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know what you think. I'm especially happy with how they look at small sizes e.g. Rutgers Street Tunnel – flamurai (t) 10:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Interstate blank.svg

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Interstate blank.svg for speedy deletion with the reason "just the empty page here, not the image on commons". However, "just the empty page here, not the image on commons" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 13:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This message also applies to Image:Interstate 75.svg, Image:Interstate15 Ivanpah Valley.jpg, and Image:Interstate15 Ivanpah Valley.jpg. Stifle 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll just remove the category and leave a blank page, as images shouldn't be in categories like that, whether or not they're on commons. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Stifle 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't they now be deleted because they're blank? Common sense would seem to say that having no page is better than having a page - deletion policy doesn't seem to deal with the case of a description page for a commons image. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't. However, what it does mean is that if you type in Image:Interstate blank.svg into the search box, the image and its description page come up. Try that with Image:Star Trek TNG S1 WO5.png (which is only on Commons), and you get an error. For the moment I'm inclined to keep the blank pages, if only for that reason. Stifle 14:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Please don't make major changes to 300 pages without consensus, thanks.JohnnyBGood 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI, as you know, your proposed forced road naming convention failed to reach consensus by any reasonable metric. Therefore the only consensus that applies to California State Highways is the one at WP:CASH. Please discuss your proposed mass name change there. Gentgeen 19:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI time to give up. You have 6 people telling you you're wrong now... STOP violating consensus.JohnnyBGood 19:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or thirded I suppose. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CA Shields

Nice job. They look very good. Joydawg 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, do you think it's possible you can manually center California 4, so that the vertical bar in the 4 is centered? Joydawg 20:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then perhaps just nudging it slightly to the left? I see it under the O in the picture, so that the empty space on both sides is a little more even. Joydawg 20:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for 1st roundabout in the US.

You had placed a note on an entry of mine in Roundabout about the first roundabout in the US. Well, long story short, while it is old (1930) and a roundabout I still can't verify it was the first so I removed the claim. Thanks for note and I should've checked my facts closer. --Costoa 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets

If you attempt to bring in Meatpuppets or Sockpuppets like you did over the weekend you will be reported. JohnnyBGood 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about no? I always use edit summaries on articles, but there's no reason to use them on talk pages, as everything is signed. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that you are using edit summaries only 55% of the time. :) Thanks for not getting mad. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 14U

Good catch on this odd remnant road. Who knew Caltrans was THAT wasteful that they'd full on sign a road they don't intend to maintain any longer.JohnnyBGood 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting

Without commenting on Template:People stub which looks to me like a simple case of "SPUI's doing it so it must be destroyed" I don't suppose you could humour me with a potted history of stub sorting, or at least point me to a page that expains this black art?
brenneman^{L} 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It still looks like lunacy to me, but I'm an unrepentant user of {{stub}} for anything more complicated than {{human-stub}} or {{animal-stub}}, leaving the sorting to those with the variety of OCD that makes it fun for them. I do enjoy it when they duke it out, though. Rocket-stub -> space-craft-stub -> satelite-sub -> rocket-stub...
brenneman^{L} 06:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hi SPUI! I can't seem to figure which page should be moved over to Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes to fix the cut-and-paste pagemove you noted - there is a redirect Wikipedia talk:Infobox which points to it. Since I'm not so informed regarding those pages, I'm going to leave the page deleted as is. At your convenience, could you take a look and perform whatever move needs to be done? If you need me to restore the page again, feel free to let me know. See you around! --HappyCamper 13:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a little out of it...I've fixed a handful of cut-and-paste pagemoves before, but this is the first time I've sort of jumped into the middle of something where I'm not sure what the source or target is. I just deleted the page to make way for whatever page move that was required. I can see in the page history that you moved something about an hour after you left me this message, so I guess the pages are they way they are supposed to be now? --HappyCamper 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipolitics all over

give it up with california state routes I think... I've stopped working on them because every time someone tries to better standardise things it causes a big uproar -_-. Good work, though! (I think Route XX (California) makes more sense, so i'm not trying to be an ass to you, just felt like leaving a note thanknig you for your ceaseless efforts in the face of a stubborn crowd -- keep up the good work) atanamir 04:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT Subchat. Please be more civil here.

Subchat is a relatively small bunch of people who discuss trains, and often goof off and flamewar. Wikipedia is much bigger, chaps don'r know each other as well, and the upshot is that being annoying can result in more bans and blocks here because admins don't know you as well. Being friendly helps, whether on Subchat OR Wikipedia, but even more so over here. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (New Brunswick Station)[reply]

padding on ca/sr box?

Do you think the ca/sr infobox looks a little crowded? I think a little table padding and/or a line break between the shield and the "Route XX" heading will make it easier on the eyes. atanamir 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's better! Cool. thanks atanamir 04:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case U.S. Roads

Concerning this case:

If you need a fast assignment of a mediator it generally helps when you are willing to mediate in a different case. If you can't mediate yourself maybe somebody else interested in the case would be willing to mediate and thereby increase your chance to get a mediator fast. --Fasten 11:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

If you are interested in this case please leave a statement at this page for the mediator. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1964 state highway renumbering (California)

Is there a reason why you elected to use 'state highway' here instead of 'state route'? Should we move this to state route renumbering to better conform to our 'state route XX' argument? atanamir 03:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I see. I'll be working on an equivalent list for WA. 1964 state highway renumbering (Washington). Great idea for the list, by the way. ^^ atanamir 03:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does washignton refer to them as 'sign routes'? This PDF(the first link on the article's future site) seems to indicate that they do. atanamir 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems that WA/SR-10 is not longer the oroginal routing as defined by the 1964 reumbering, should i describe on the article as it was originally routed in 1964, or how it is now? Also -- the renumbering document itself doesnt' seem to list US and Interstates, should i imply these from the numbers that exist today? atanamir 05:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US state highway renumbering 1964 is this useful at all? I don't know if all states had some massive renubering in 1964, but it looks like it so far. I'm not sure about the island / territories though. atanamir 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Sorry, i forgot -- how do i put something up for speedy deletion? Thanks atanamir 05:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I've completed a new 'series'-style template for the renumberings page and plopped d on the old template (although it seems to have marked your talk page for deletion as well). I think it looks nice; but i had to move the wikisource box to the bottom on a few of the pages beuase it looked ugly wiht both tbls and no space inbetween. atanamir 05:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I was considering that kind of navbox, but the possiblity of a lot of states and making it big made the series-type box seem like a better choice. atanamir 05:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WASH

Don't tell me you're going to do the mass page moves and force the "State Route x (Washington)" convention on this WikiProject. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don;t know that for certain. If you do mass page moves, another California will happen. I could care less about the redirects though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least no one has started revert wars here. As an unbiased opinion, though (since you know i support the state route XX (stae_name) notation), I don't tihnk you should try moving any of the washington pages yet until CA has been cleared up. Rschen has a;ready asid he doesn't mind redirects, so we can just leave them as such until something has been decided. atanamir 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 hour block

I've blocked you for an hour until another admin can review the situation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sup blocking a user you're in a dispute with. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were moving pages and you were told not to. Hence the hour block until someone could look at it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say until full consensus is reached, all article names stay the the way they are (no matter how messed up it looks now). We're all getting sick and tired of trying to move things back to "California State Route Whatever" Let's work on getting everybody to agree on something with the names, instead of making WP:CASH look like they don't know what they're doing. If I were able to only allow you to edit the Wikipedia namespace only, I would. But I can't. So the block stays. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 22:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You speak as if WP:CASH knows what they're doing. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could ask you the same thing... but then we'd be guilty of WP:DICK behavior. Obviously you're not above doing that.Gateman1997 22:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pot/kettle. — Mar. 27, '06 [00:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Under the terms of your probation, I am banning you from any page moves on transportation-related articles for 48 hours. Please heed this ban while we discuss this situation. Also, let me know if anyone else has reverted your moves, because I've warned them at WP:AN/I not to do so. Ral315 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just page-move protect all the CASR articles? --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 22:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit un-wiki for me, but a possible outcome if people continue edit-warring. Ral315 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's 200+ articles in CA, and we might have to protect the WA ones too, and this has the potential to spread to the 2,000+ U.S. Road articles. I mean if ordered to I could help but still... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps everyone should review Wikipedia:Protection policy? - brenneman^{L} 01:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A precedent which might concern you deeply

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#AndriyK banned. This was pointed out to me by an Arbcomm member. I find it quite relevant to the current dispute. — Mar. 27, '06 [00:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I believe I recall an admin telling you that any moves of these articles should be subject to RM, so it's hardly dickish since you should be doing an RM for ANY of them in the first place ;). Gateman1997 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WASH

What is this? Do you really want to start a war in Washington? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK SPUI

There is a set of compromise offers on the Mediation page. I'm going to ask you nicely. Could you please make no more edits to state route pages until we can achieve a sort of consensus? Thanks in advance. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not being specific, I did the same to Rschen, I meant to ask if you could not make any edits related to the dispute, i.e. moving California or Washington SRs. Also please don't make any like changes to other SRs either, while they make sense to you and others, they are highly likely to get people pissed. If you could hold off on redoing infoboxes and moving pages until we work out the dispute, it would ease tenions a lot. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 04:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 40

It took a moment to find it. But you should be unblocked. BTW, can you fix up U.S. Route 40, and maybe make a SVG of the Historic Route 40 sign? The infobox doesn't have its mileage. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll just leave them with ??s. I don't have specs for the sign, as they are privately owned by a group who wanted to keep US 40 in people's minds (by posting a sign at nearly every phone pole and intersection). I only traced it from a pic in Photoshop. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 05:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm in the middle of a bunch of things at once. For starters lets do Route 40 (which looks like the one I have, with US in the upper section with old style numbering. And Route 395 in Nevada. (Since Interstate 580 (Nevada) replaced the old 395 in Carson City. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 06:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I remember seeing the old style Historic US 40 signs a long time ago, but it's funny how the ones I see around town look completely different.

As a matter of fact, you may want to look at this.

User:SPUI/SR 599

I have to admit, your idea for an infobox with a map in it intrigues me. If more details are added to the map, such as major surrounding and intersecting routes and it's zoomed in a little more this would have my support. I'm a visual person by nature so I like the map idea, and if major routes intersecting the article route were added to a map, then that would satisfy my desire for major intersecting routes being in the infobox. Gateman1997 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States railroad maps on Commons

SPUI thank you for uploading all these excellent maps. There are so many of them though that they were overwhelming the railroad maps category. I'm sorting this by moving you images to the subcategory United States railroad maps, this in turn will need subcategorising but as I don't know anything about rail transport on your side of the Atlantic I'm going to leave that job to someone else.

If you have any more US railroad maps to upload then it would be great if you could sort them directly into commons:category:United States railroad maps (or a subcategory of it) rather than the main category. Thanks Thryduulf 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MA WP

Not a problem, it's less work for me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MA route lengths

I noticed that you adjusted the route lengths for the infoboxes I added. I've been getting the lengths from MassGIS roads data, although I am not sure if those are updated. Why is there a discrepancy with the distances from the Location Survey Sheets? Polaron 05:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal US Roads

I've reverted your blanking of this page. I'm going to assume by now you know blanking pages, especially after they've been kept by consensus vote is vandalism. I'll also assume I don't have to warn you that blanking is a blockable offense that will be enforced should you do so again.Gateman1997 09:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I have filed an RFC regarding your disruptive behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI. You may comment there in the "Response" section. —phh 02:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing your infinite capacity for restraining yourself when someone says something stupid, why don't you take the above page off your watchlist? If anything crops up that you should respond to, someone will tell you. - brenneman^{L} 04:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:N9jig-il-shield

The above template has been nominated for deletion. I know that you've made a lot of our highway marker images. Is there anything in particular about these images that means that we need to use the ones from that website, or is there something else that makes this template useful? Jkelly 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I can think of no reason whatsoever that an edit summary of "what the fuck" [5] is in any way necessary when doing an edit to an article. It would be a lot better if you would use edit summaries that are a little less offensive, thanks.--MONGO 08:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be a lot better if you grow up and do so quickly. I started that stub and it is on my watch list and I certainly agree with the edit itself but see no reason for that edit summary. I consider it disruption, I am an administrator and if it continues, I will block you from editing for 24 hours.--MONGO 08:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the terms of your Wikipedia:Probation, and because of your multiple uses of profanity in edit summaries, I have banned you from editing some eight articles and one talk page for one week, and from Wikipedia for two days, to run concurrently. See the log for full details, and--I address you with respect as one of our best contributors--please try to exercise more self-restraint. Edit summaries are particularly sensitive because they cannot easily be removed. --Tony Sidaway 11:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck. What the fuck. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I apologized for the one that was a personal attack. The rest are perfectly acceptable edits. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI...you do excellent work I believe for the most part, and maybe I was over the top in my comment...I could have been kinder about it as it isn't that huge an issue. But again, I smply didn't understand that edit summary just to make a simple correction to some links. I am appreciative that you did the edit you did, and corrected the information. So I thank you for that.--MONGO 12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I talk in an informal setting both offline and online. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI unblocking

SPUI - I'm unblocking you at the moment. As a courtesy to the rest of the Wikipedians who have been closely watching your edits, I must provide an explanation for this unblocking, and so, I will post something on your talkpage after I have written it up. It should not be too long of a message, but I want to make sure it's free of spelling errors. In the meantime, please add the article content that you planned to do.

Could I ask one thing of you though? Could you please tone down your edit summaries? :-) They don't bug me at all, but the reality is that the space that we all use on Wikipedia is shared, and...well, others might not be so tolerant and understanding of your behaviour. I know this might be asking for a lot, but for the next little bit, could you please do whatever you can in your capacity towards that end? It would help me keep your unblocking viable while I am writing an explanation for it. I don't want to get too involved with this issue, but I want to give Good Faith another chance here. Let me know what your thoughts are when you get a chance? --HappyCamper 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you should probably post it on WP:ANI, as that's where the current discussion is. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget the autoblock, or are you writing the explanation first?

06:46, 31 March 2006, Tony Sidaway (Talk) blocked #130080 (expires 06:46, 1 April 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "SPUI". The reason given for SPUI's block is: "Two-day ban under provisions of Probation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests)

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I did forget the autoblock. I was caught up on something else. Unblocking that right now. Just give me a second. --HappyCamper 12:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work now? I'll comb through the logs again just to double check. --HappyCamper 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI, please remember that you are still validly banned from Wikipedia under the terms of your probation. Notwithstanding Happy Camper's good will wish to see you up and editing again as soon as possible, I think it would be unwise to start editing until he and I have chatted about his unusual action in overturning a ban enforcement measure. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Camper and I are discussing the situation. Meanwhile, he has suggested that I may reblock, and I am taking up his suggestion because I think it is fairer to you to remove ambiguity about whether you're allowed to edit [6]. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of making some corrections about which Interstate will be extended along current I-95 once the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project is completed. Does it really improve Wikipedia to block me? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reblocked for "disruption" consisting of using "fuck" in edit summaries. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know...I will address that when I'm finished writing. So much is going on right now that I am finding it hard to keep up with everything. It is an exceptionally rare event for me to reverse another adminstrator's actions on Wikipedia, let alone one that was done with quite a bit of precision and reasoning - I'm sure you'll appreciate that this is something that I need to explain.

I hope you do understand why I gave Tony the liberal option of reblocking you, and I fully support him doing so - a lot of users have expended a lot of time observing your account and the activities associated with it, and this is partially in recognition of their jurisprudence.

I don't know whether what I have to say would make any difference or not, but for the sake of this project, I have to try and do by best. In the meantime, if you could co-operate towards this end, that would be great. Ideally, if everything resolves properly, it would work out for everyone - including you. I have confidence in this, and I want you to show everyone with an interest in your activites you do too. As I understand it, the block is only for two days - if you really want to edit articles, send them to me in an e-mail, and I will post them on your behalf. I suspect that it would probably be judicious to leave your talk page for a while just so the dust settles a little bit. That way, as one Wikipedian put it: "you'll be off the radar".

I know we haven't interacted so much on Wikipedia before, but before I go, can I get you to trust me on this one? I am setting aside a significant amount of my time usually devoted to research and writing papers to write something meaningful on your behalf and for Wikipedia, so in some sense, there must be something to it. Just be patient. I don't want to refresh this page quite so often, but I also don't want everyone to spontaneously write too much about something that can be given some time and thought. Today's drama was quite a bit of purtubation towards normal activites on Wikipedia, so natually, it will take a bit of time for everything to feel resolved. But do send me e-mails of your articles though - I know you appreciate continuity in editing - I won't be checking my inbox so frequently, but I will post them on your behalf when I do get them. Regards, HappyCamper 13:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's only six hours, I'll wait it out. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I wait for Happy Camper to write up his unblocking reasons, I'll address the reason for banning you in more detail. I've banned you from each of the articles you disrupted, but only for a week (I could have banned you indefinitely but I don't see that this would have helped Wikipedia in the long run). Additionally you can be banned from Wikipedia for up to seven days "for each provocative edit" you make. Well use of profanity in edit summares provocative enough. But I'm only banning you from Wikipedia for two days. I think this is enough to send you the message that administrators do have the power to rein you in when you revert to acting like a small boy.

The articles you are banned from for the following seven days are as follows:

Route_128_(Massachusetts) and its talk page, Woodstock, CT, Poweshiek_County, Iowa, Denny's, Helena National Forest, Virginia State Highway 288, Mountain_Dell_Dam and List of State Routes in Delaware.

To keep Wikipedia a civil environment, it's necessary to dissuade editors from using edit histories to make abusive comments. The thing that decided me to ban you in this instance was my observation of your reaction to a simple warning by MONGO. You obviously don't think there's anything wrong with what you did and you're likely to do it again if not shown that this isn't allowed. It's the way you have reacted in the past. Hence the ban. And indeed the second and third edits you made to your talk page after being banned contained profanities in the edit summaries, which were clearly intended as provocation and confirmed everything the Arbitration Committee said about you in putting you on probation [7] [8].

I think it's good that you apologised for the personal attack, and I'll take this into account in my discussion with Happy Camper. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there's nothing wrong with using the work "fuck" in an edit summary, and I will continue to do so. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, that this is precisely the kind of behavior that the Arbitration Committee aimed at. Saying fuck in edit summaries in the circumstances will just get your ban reset for provocative editing. It's currently due to run until 14:03 UTC on 2 April, 2006, pending discussion with HappyCamper. --Tony Sidaway 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being a dick. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing your case with HappyCamper with a view to reviewing the ban. If you try not to call me a dick in the meantime, it might give him more ammunition in persuading me that you are unlikely to make further provocative edits. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Apparently it wasn't only for 6 hours. What the fuck. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here, and I'll unblock. But you have to read this first: --HappyCamper 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SPUI,

I know this might be trying your patience a little bit, but at your convenience, I really hope you get a chance to read this and put some thought into what has been written. This may be a bit verbose, but for situations like this, it seems reasonable to be transparent – my posts are cluttering up your talk page a little bit, so if you want to remove it after you’ve read it, feel free to do so; I won’t mind at all. I’ll try to address some Tony’s concerns here as well – after all, I decided to undo an action that was well thought out and in line with what would be expected of a diligent administrator carrying out duties on behalf of the arbitration committee. I’ll follow up with him afterwards, and if something comes up that is relevant to you, I’ll make sure you’re in the loop.

Out of curiosity, I found out today that you have over 54 thousand edits to Wikipedia – that must be at least 7 times the number of edits that I have! That is just amazing. On top of that, you have almost 40,000 edits to the main article namespace! I’m sure you’ve got something special in mind for that magical edit. I hope you can share with me what you have in mind.

To be honest, I know very little about those 54 thousand edits, other than the fact that you seem to be very adept at finding and cataloging information about roads and highways. I’ve always been impressed with how quickly you can find this sort of information – some of my friends in the transportation industry have come across articles that you have edited, and it always brings a smile to my face whenever I say "Oh yeah - it’s that guy, SPUI that made that page!"

I also looked at your block log, and your recent contributions – and it is very apparent that my regard for you is justifiably in the minority. For want of a better phrase, it is difficult for many to overlook and forget the numerous times activities from this account have been, well - a bit disruptive. I know you recognize this, and I also recognize that at this moment there is little inclination on your part to modulate these activities. I am not sure if I understand why that is, but my guess is that you feel that those activities constitute a part of your identity on Wikipedia – SPUI wouldn’t be SPUI without the occasional profanity in edit summaries, the abrasive tongue-in-cheek comments, and the brave, point-blank statements to administrators who you feel have done things out of line. This of course, does not even address your userpage! You know, it’s a creative way of bringing out that Maverick in you – and yes, that's a capital M for Maverick.

Sometimes, there’s a fine line between being consciously witty, versus being admirably stupid. Perhaps not the greatest dichotomy, but I have no doubt in my mind that for example, you deliberately line up a sequence of pages ready to move as quickly as possible just to test out that pagemove blockbot – I might be blatantly wrong, but it’s obvious! I think it is a way for you to be in implicit control – force a block, and a subsequent ruckus over at WP:AN over the correct procedures to unblock you – one Wikipedian inevitably brings up whether X, Y, Z is relevant in your case, et cetera, et cetera. You know, it’s sort of cute the first few times around – but after a while, it gets old – I think we need a better SPUI :-)

What does this really mean? I think it would be prudent to consider how patient and accepting the community has been of your whimsical activities. Despite some of the negative history you have built up, in retrospect, I think the site has given you plenty of chances to be yourself and for you to feel at home and valued. An intelligent editor recognizes this, and would not come back consistently to contribute if this were not the case. It would not be unreasonable for you to reciprocate some of this. Create for yourself an environment that is more conducive to article writing. In the end, I think what many Wikipedians want most from you, is just for you to give them some space – a little room for them to relax. For example, the space in the recent changes page is shared. Let me take your edit summaries as an example - what you write in them is broadcasted.

I won’t go into the philosophies of profanity or disruption – I will say that I know you can do better than that. At least, if you can't hold back, substitute one quarter fish, three quarters duck for your swear words of choice – I challenge you to be a just a bit more cunning. For someone with a prolific edit history, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that you add these higher grade alternatives to the archives. It makes people think, it makes people smile, it makes people notice you, and it makes people get off your case. That allows you to do what you do best - take care of those articles, and inject a bit of positive animation into a place that would otherwise be just an encyclopedia. We are talking about Wikipedia – so in your fullest capacity, could you make an honest and active effort to change your edit summaries?

There are a number of users on Wikipedia who have become progressively marginalized by the community over time, simply because few people have demonstrated to them on a consistent basis the respect they deserve. It saddens me when the community feels the need to place users on probation – partly so because it says as a project, we lack the capacity to reach out and address problems adequately and quickly. On the other hand, it also speaks volumes about how much it has grown over time. In some sense, we created a mechanism where it is justified to block and defer responsibility to the future when the block expires. Knowing that the system behaves like this, sometimes it is worth the effort to do that extra little bit so that you do not become a victim of it. It’s not worth your valuable time, nor anyone else’s. You didn’t create SPUI to be babysat like that duck in the perambulator. We don’t create administrators to do the babysitting either.

I have never asked this of a Wikipedian before, so it may be a bit awkward, but let me try this with earnest: could you make your account robust towards any attempt at finding a flaw in behavior, one that might warrant a block for say, disruption? "Disruption" is a term that is loaded with multiple and ambiguous meanings. Make an effort to be crystal clear regarding your actions – make it unambiguously constructive and healthy.

A while ago, I remember you asking someone a rhetorical question – whether blocking you would make Wikipedia a better place. To that end, I would arguably say that no, it wouldn’t. It would be another demonstration of how certain blocks can lengthen the duration of problems and defer them to the future. There was no doubt in my mind that you would simply perform the edits you wanted to do without intensifying edits, and then simply log off. It is not often that something is done to cap an ambiguous situation on the spot. Perhaps I am a bit slow and laborious - undoubtedly, not all of what is written here would be useful for you, but it conveys the reasons why certain things are expected on Wikipedia, and why it is to your benefit that you have that system on your side, and not the other way around.

I must head off now and look after other things, but I really do hope you read through this and give it some thought. It is important that you do, because I suspect the reservoir of patience that the community at large has shown towards you is running low. You deserve to be treated with respect, so towards that end, here is an olive branch to you. I will unblock Tony’s recent extension of your block, and leave Wikipedia for a little bit. I want to show the community that I can trust you, and that you can reciprocate this.

When I come back, I want to see a consistent change in behavior - simply put, whatever has been brewing has to stop, and it has to stop now. Show that you can end it, and the administrators can reciprocate in kind - immediately. I do hope that this is observed, otherwise, I have no choice but to liberally extend Tony’s block. Of course, we both know this is an empty threat if you could make an effort to use:

Edit summaries which are not intensifying, and somewhat modulated or toned down
Unambiguously constructive editing prowess in all your contributions

I cannot prevent another observing adminstrator from preempting some implicit decisions here, and if something occurs before I return, I will let things be, and simply walk off and do something else. This is the best I can do on your behalf, but to do any better, I need your help and co-operation. We can talk more later if you like, but I believe this to be unnecessary if I trust you. Sincerest regards, HappyCamper 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no doubt in my mind that for example, you deliberately line up a sequence of pages ready to move as quickly as possible just to test out that pagemove blockbot." Heh, that's actually not true - though I may be relatively unconcerned with the blockbot, my main goal has been getting the moves done efficiently.

Similarly, with the recent edit summaries, I was in no way expecting anyone to find fault with them (except the one personal attack on Route 288 - that was uncalled for). That is simply the language I use in everyday conversations.

Anyway, I'll try to do as you ask. We'll see what happens. Thanks for the "olive branch". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to make a guess, right? :-) As I said: "I might be blatantly wrong". So much for the edit summaries - just be a bit careful and that should do the trick. Anyway, I just unblocked you - thanks for letting me know you'll give it a try. It really means a lot to me. I left a message for Tony first before the unblocking, which was why I am a bit late coming back. I really must head off now, so all the best to you that Wikipedia has to offer! --HappyCamper

Thanks for going the extra mile for this editor. I'll suspend the bans for now. If'll lift them entirely if he makes it through the weekend. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a brief followup I had with Tony after I left Wikipedia for a few days: [9] - thanks again. --HappyCamper 22:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

The notices were there to prevent another Locke Cole incident from happening. It's there to prevent clueless newbies from getting unnecessarily blocked. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are county routes, not state routes. The ban was basically referring to state highways and state routes, not county routes, interstates, or U.S. Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself at {{Project U.S. Roads}} - it's state highways only. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You two leave me out of this. County Routes aren't State Highways, have a nice night.Gateman1997 10:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RI

I assume that you will be bringing your page moves to Rhode Island? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's mass moves with no consensus, I will do something to stop it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

colorado

Sorry, I just moved them all back to colorado state highway X becauase rschen protested. -_- thanks for changing the links, though. atanamir 00:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on something htat is not controvertial

Do you happen to have the font for the state name in interstate shields? I want to make a i-470 SVG for colorado to replace that GIF.

Thanks atanamir 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes/no? (I assume you didn't see this) atanamir 03:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OH! i'm sorry -_- i'm blind atanamir 03:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A way to stop the moving madness

User:Rschen7754/HDD. Let me know if you have any suggestions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 3, but some odd number, and more than one. That way there's no ties possible, and an admin could always be biased. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So otherwise do you think it's fine? Or how else would you suggest to resolve this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then what are your other suggestions? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not willing to compromise then? You're just going to go through and ignore whatever anyone else wants? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you conceive of agreeing to any method of resolving this disagreement that carries a chance, however small, of resulting in you not getting exactly what you want? --phh 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects

I am finding multiple double redirects in your recent edits. Please go through and check for them whenever you can. Thank you. Moe ε 03:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whenever you get the chance, make the corrections so others don't have to. :-D Moe ε 03:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for pagemoves again!

Blocked for breaching arbcom ruling

The Arbitration Committee imposed restrictions on your ability to edit Wikipedia due to past behaviour on your part. Not withstanding that you have continued to engage in prohibited editing.

As a result you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for as required by the ruling. Those restrictions placed on you by the Arbitration Committee were clear. If you continue to breach this arbcom ruling you will be subject to a longer block.

Please do not erase warnings on this page.

April fools --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 04:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG {{unblock}} --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for M1-100

I sent a request into IDOT for the M1-I100 specs. There may be other avenues to this information, but they'll take a while. I'll let you know what (if anything) I get back. In the meantime, Bill Burmaster has plenty (300+) of pictures of signs that'll be close. In addition, the supplement indicates that the standard sizes of signs are 24"x24" (2dis) and 24"x30" (3dis). If necessary, I'll just measure the word "ILLINOIS" myself. —Rob (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to include the link to Bill's page... —Rob (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the IL MUTCD supplement seems to indicate just a sign, not the size, in spite of the fact I swear I saw a 24x24 for 2dis and 24x30 for 3dis. The wide 3dis look like they were made in 03-01, plus it fits in line with the request that state shields be the same size as U.S. Route shields in the 2003 National MUTCD. Honestly, since the use of square and rectangle shields is 50/50 on 1xx 3dis, I'd just pick rectangles for all 3dis since that's closest to standard. Illinois 171 is the latest extended 3di in Illinois, but even on the newly extended part, it's about 4 24x30 signs to 2 24x24 signs. —Rob (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, shield looks spot on. I'd hold off on mass production until I get some sort of response from IDOT; if not them, I dunno... clearly there has to be a company that makes the things according to some sort of spec (ad hoc or otherwise). A week from yesterday should suffice. Also, Indiana has almost the exact same layout, but it looks like the numbers and letters are a tad bigger and margins a bit smaller. I'll see if I can find specs for IN in my browsing... —Rob (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a notice

Since not all of the highway articles can be protected in a practical way, I will simply consider blocking people who move war over them for long enough. I don't see anyone move warring just yet, though there are a lot of moves (nothing wrong with a little WP:BOLD). Just be sure to avoid any editing warring over these articles. Your naming convention does seem more accurate and less redundant, but still...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 04:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado State Highway 1

How is the map on there? too much information? too little labels? too large? atanamir 06:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hm, okay... colorado isn't as interesting (geographically) as washington -- should i put in some of the cities, then, to give the reader a better bearing on the location? Otherwsie it'd be just a grey square with a red line on it... atanamir 07:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps - wow do you sleep? isn't it like 3am in florida? haha

- I've changed it... do you think it's still too big? I have a 24" LCD, so i can't tell if it's too crowded on a msaller screen. It seems fine when i shrink my window size, though. atanamir 09:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Well, now i know you won't like the new format i've been doing: U.S. Route 6 in Colorado. I added names for the counties... i just hadn't updated the maps for SH 1 and 2 yet. atanamir 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is wiki being weird for you? a lot of images arne't loading up on my computer. atanamir 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting time on Minnesota highways

Before I waste any more time doing Minnesota highways incorrectly, what should I call them? Clearly, Minnesota State Highway 100 is incorrect. "Minnesota Trunk Highway 100" is clunky, and "Trunk Highway 100 (Minnesota)" isn't a likely search term. Also, the existing (yet poorly populated) lists all say "Minnesota State Highway 100".

Should I even waste any more time on routeboxes, city lists, and shields when it's pretty much assured that I'm getting them wrong?

--E lkman - ^(talk) 20:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kosova

Thanks SPUI for your redirect to the Kosovo template. The point is that the Kosova template should not have been created in the first place. I am for listing it for deletion if it reappears and then permanently fix the redirect (if possible). The current state of the Template:Kosovo fulfils Wikipedia NPOV policy and it's true to the facts. The territory is a province of Serbia under United Nations administration, in the Resolution 1244 (1999), adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 10 June 1999, the UN reafirm its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and its sucessor state, the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, after the country changed its name). Regards, Asterion 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image purging

Thanks for the tip. I didn't know about that technique. Polaron 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi I'm just curious what your goal with the state routes in New England is. You seem to be suggesting some within the same state with the same route number be divided up, yet are suggesting routes from different states such as Maine State Route 9 be combined with routes that are from completely different states. Any light you wish to shed on this would be appreciated.Gateman1997 03:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with that. They share a common road, but they are different routes as they are maintained by different states and governments. For instance US 99 and Route 99 (British Columbia) were never the same route even though they shared a common road and a common number. If this were an interstate or US route then you would be correct, however these routes are not the same route, just the same physical road. Gateman1997 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As have I. Let's keep it there for simplicty sake going forward. Gateman1997 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vandal count

Why did you change it to 2 here? My talk hasn't been vandalized yet (a good thing, considering I only archived it tonight). --Rory096 06:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes! --Rory096 06:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that means I have to warn you, too. --Rory096 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do. --Rory096 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vermount Route 12A

Well, I didn't find a stub that was related specifically to "Vermont State Highways" like some of the other states, so I used a seemingly-generic "US State Highways" stub. Then I noticed that the message on the stub referred to the US Highways WikiProject, so I just assumed it went there as well. If I was incorrect (which it seems that I am), go ahead and remove the reference to the WikiProject. Thanks for noticing my error. Amalas 15:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one of us needs to request the stub {{Vermont-State-Highway-stub}} so that it matches the other stubs... *shrug* Amalas 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this against wp policy?

Hi, I made an experimental route highlighting system using both ms virtual earth and google maps. State Highway 10 (Colorado) beta test is there. (the links at the bottom). Is linking to the wikipedia images against policy? I just pass in the raw url to the thumbnail. Does the system sound like a good idea to implement throughout? atanamir 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So no mapping of the entire map? atanamir 06:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG image bug

Hi. I just thought I'd point you to this bug report so you know what to do if you see some shields aren't displayed. -- Paddu 06:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Barnstar

I've removed your addition of the Missing Barnstar to my page. This is my strong advocation, as one of the persons who set up the Missing Barnstar, I must tell that the Missing Barnstar, as the name suggests, is solely confined for those who want a barnstar but don't have even one, to stand themselves out so that somebody could give them an award. I have one barnstar, so it is not legitimate for me to put up, or being put up, with that barnstar.

The Missing Barnstar is not an instrument for one to mark another person as a person who deserves a barnstar, either. If you think that I deserve a barnstar but don't have one, please kindly choose an award directly and give it to me. There's no restriction on who should be giving out a barnstar, so anybody can give out barnstars to any other whom they appreciate.

I know that my tone is a bit harsh as I'm currently in quite a fury (not caused by your act). Anyway, remember the actual purpose of the Missing Barnstar. We don't award others with a Missing Barnstar. If you find someone missing a barnstar, fill it with a barnstar.

Cheers, D e ryc k C. 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A no-barnstar zone and a missing barnstar occuring on the same page? I would advice you to ask that person to remove it. The missing barnstar is an identifier for the WP:KC to judge who wants a barnstar. --D e ryc k C. 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indaian

it seems IDOT calls them state roads in indiana; but right now everything is atstate highway. Is there some bot that can move all the pages to Indiana State Road X or State Road X (Indiana)? Or do i have to do it all manually? atanamir 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

haha. Rschen got on my case right when he saw i moved the list pages. atanamir 03:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Hampshire State Highways

Hi SPUI. I know you've been around a while, but... I removed the speedy delete tag from Template:New Hampshire State Highways since being unused is not a CSD as far as I know. I believe you should take it to WP:TFD--sometimes things like this are kept for {{historical}} interest. ~MDD 46 96 06:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate shields with corrected border

Why not reupload the new shields with the corrected border under the same name (Interstate N.svg) instead of uploading under a new name (I-N.svg) and changing the images in thousands of pages? Just curious. Thanks! -- Paddu 14:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

Stop tagging the WA highways cat, which had no consensus to delete at CFD. Also, do not move the maine highway pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Highway Markers

Hey, all I have found so far is an impropery tagged GIF (Image:Ut201.GIF); I was wondering if you could make up SVGs that are not copyright-questionable? Thanks Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try [10]? Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NH Routes on ME list?

Hey, just curious as to why you added a few NH routes on the list of Maine routes. Gateman1997 03:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly... I figured you were going to move it anyway so I thought I'd beat you to the punch. That and frankly I don't care where they are anymore.

Route 288 (Virginia)

On Virginia State Highway 288, you commented that many roads are built to Interstate standards but don't have Interstate designations. This is true, but very few are freeways (as opposed to toll roads). I can't think of a single other Interstate-standard freeway in Virginia that doesn't have an Interstate designation (other than a few very short ~3mi sections of US-29), and certainly not one that was built to Interstate standards from end-to-end. I think it's a notable issue to mention that it's unusual it hasn't been awarded such a designation, especially as it's a loop around a city connecting two 2DIs. In some states, like Michigan, which have a history of building full-fledged freeways without Interstate designations, this may not be a big deal, but in Virginia it's caused some head-scratching in "roadgeek" circles. Jkatzen 08:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has it caused any head scratching outside roadgeek circles? Have there been any plans to make it an Interstate? From what I can tell, it was never supposed to be one. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether there have been plans to make it an Interstate, and it was planned as a state route all the way back to its initial conception decades ago (even when it was intended to be part of a complete circumferential road). Nonetheless, it's the only freeway of any length so far as I can tell in the entire Commonwealth that's built to Interstate standards with no such designation. As such, this bit of trivia alone is worthy of inclusion on the page. Jkatzen 05:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HABS/HAER link

Thanks for the info on premanent links to HABS/HAER. As for the bridges section on the "oldest railroad" page, I don't claim to know if it should or shouldn't be there. I had a passing interest on historic bridges in central Maryland that has pretty much run its course -- I have no plans to stay involved in adding/developing railroad articles. — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florifda state roads

Yes, but even the articles on Wikipedia themselves refer to them by the names I'm giving them. True, it might be the name given to them, but (State Name) State Road (number) would give better search results than State Road (number (state name). Moe ε 19:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how disambiguation works. The examples given are a little off. Like spymaster John Jones, spymaster is what John Jones is doing. State Road 429 (Florida)'s article refers it to Florida State Road 429. State Road 429 might be it's name, but with more than one, and an alternate name given it should be enough disambiguation given. Moe ε 19:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Illinois

No, no specs and it's been at least a week. Plus the IDOT guy replied to one of them, not all three emails I've sent. 3dis are traditionally 24x30... but all those 2di-sized 1xx signs are usually to make the sign fit "nicely" with a directional or arrow sign. The MUTCD prefers 3di signs be 24x30, so I'd go with rectangles for all 3dis.

Plus if you really, really want something to do, you can start moving them. My bot request has gone unheeded. —Rob (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the page moves... it looks much better. I spent the morning taking pictures of a handful of routes, so we'll see if they help the articles at all... —Rob (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOLY SHIT

Speaking of I-155, check this shit:

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=36.220595~-89.747808&style=a&lvl=15

Category:Washington highways

c'mon, SPUI, you've obviously been in disputes, and should know that CSD is not the place for dispute resolution . . . so please stop trying to get that category speedied. --He:ah? 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Routes

Hi, It's all good. Should we remove the ones I made then? (I used the naming Alaska X.svg; so right now there's two copies on the commons. Also, which spec did you look at? I posted an ADOT PDF that i found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alaska (I also started a thread there about the naming convention if you're interested) for shields... here's a direct link: shield; there, i saw they used the EM font; w hich is why i used them in the shields I made. atanamir 03:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

And thank you for opening that little window to your personality to me. Dismas|^(talk) 13:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SR/SH/SRoad dab pages

Should this page and this one go here? I wrote up a list of DABs at User:Atanamir/WIP, but i cant figure out where to put them, especially 'state highway' one. atanamir 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer

Deletion review is clearly not a forum to overturn decisions on WP:AFD which resulted in keep. I would like to ask that you remove this link to WP:DRV and consider supporting the relocation of this discussion to the talk page of the article, where it belongs. (See the recent history logs of WP:DRV for details.) Silensor 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curps Block - o - Bot

Do you have a specific syntax for each of the page moves, if there's consensus I might be able to use a flagged bot to do it (provided you have nice clear community consensus links). I don't know about blocking Curps, Curps's bot is a necessary evil and it's a really good thing to have around when WoW comes around -- Tawker 03:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedying talkpages with project templates on them

G'day SPUI,

I've already answered you on IRC, but for form's sake, I guess I'll add it here, too.

Talkpages with project templates on them are common across Wikipedia. There's hundreds, maybe thousands of the bastards. Nobody has complained except you. You have not attempted to raise any discussion on the issue, instead tagging a random talkpage for deletion and expecting the admin on the spot (in this case, me) to come along and do your bidding. Given the wide proliferation of project templates on talkpages, and your history of unnecessary conflict with other transportation anoraks, it seems to me that any admin doing what you ask in this case would be a bad idea. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand freakofnurture told you to do something silly. He was joking, and freely admits it's not likely to succeed. Guess what? It didn't. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway category renames

Several category renames on highways have passed CFD recently. The problem is that our move bot is down, so the actual work of the renames is starting to back up tremendously. Every little bit of help counts, so I figured I would come here and point you in the direction of the completed highway ones in case you had the time to do a bit of the grunt work. Basically the data from the categories themselves needs to be moved into newly built category objects, then, the grunt work, all the entries need to be recategorized from the old cat to the new ones. If you complete any, please go to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working and move the line for that one to the bottom section, and an admin will do the actual delete on the old category when they get a chance. Any assistance on these that you can provide would be wonderful.

Category:U.S. Highway 66 to Category:U.S. Route 66

Category:Communities on U.S. Highway 66 to Category:Communities on U.S. Route 66

Category:Rhode Island State Highways to Category:Numbered routes in Rhode Island

TexasAndroid 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]