User talk:Rschen7754

; Archives
	March 2005 – October 2005; October 2005 – December 2005; December 2005 – March 2006; March 2006 – April 2006; The beginning of the move wars; April 2006 – September 2006; September 2006 – Jun 2025;

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Rschen7754/Archive7. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

By the way, I have decided... I will be withdrawing for a while from Wikipedia on weekdays. Basically, this is taking too much of my time. I can't do my homework or more important things. However, I will check my watchlist daily. (Things really get messy when I take a break, with stubs especially. It gets really hard to catch up. So I can't leave even temporarily.)

Thank you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your work and patience at the state route naming conventions poll, in helping bring a general consensus to this long-standing debate even at the risk of one vocal opponent to the entire process. Your work on various transport related pages is of high quality and improves the quality of the encylopedia. Kudos and thank you! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support above provided barnstar. Good work, you have far more patience than I. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SRNC

Can I vote only for New Jersey or can I vote for all 50 states? Who is eleigible to vote within a particular state? Alansohn 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't voters have a genuine participatory connection on the state's road articles? Dare I ask what your connection is to New Jersey's roads? For that matter, I haven't seen any edits from User:Myselfalso to NJ roads. I disagree entirely with User:Northenglish regarding the existence of controversy in New Jersey, but I have a great deal of respect for the fact that he has actively participated in WP:NJSCR, and that his vote has meaningful value as such. Alansohn 03:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have expressed, I already have genuine concerns about the process that led up to the consensus that created the proposals in question. But doesn't allowing anyone to vote in any state, even if they have never participated in editing the state's highway articles or have some other demonstrable connection to that state, undermine whatever remaining shred of validity this voting might have? Why stop at restricting the vote to those with 100 edits to anything on Wikipedia, which could consist of fixing typos or editing Pokemon articles, or anything else irrelevant to this already controversial process. Why not restrict the vote to those with 100 edits in that state or 100 edits to state highways in that state? Why not have voters state describe their justification for granting themselves a vote in a given state? I may have well over 1,000 total NJ road edits (double or triple that if I include other articles -- municipalities, bridges, interstates and U.S. Routes -- where edits were made to references to NJ roads). Why should my one vote be outweighed by any other two people who've contributed nothing to New Jersey and its road articles? If we're really trying to foster a peception of meaningful consensus, having non-participants vote just adds to the overall peception of problems with the process. Any objections to passing this on to WT:SRNC for discussion by the group? Alansohn 05:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god for the Internet, for those who might not be in the loop about a particular state and being able to find, somehow, information on the roads there. Not everyone voting is as hapless as you make them sound. -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That list you put on WT:SRNC

Is that supposed to be only states that are mostly P2, or just any state that has a mixture of conventions? -- NORTH ^talk 06:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject map

Stratosphere's got it already. It's fairly simple to do; just open the image up in Inkscape, click a state, click the red swatch at the bottom of the screen, then save and upload. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your block of Vrrayman1990

This user is a sockpuppet of Randallrobinstine, a long time sockpuppeter with many puppets. I would recommend an indef block (as a sockpuppet) instead of the 3 hours, but that's just me. —Whomp _(myedits) 02:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment

How is Interstate 244 not an article? —Scott5114 ↗ 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assessment

I think it would be better off to have each state split off. Texas alone will eventually have over 3,000 articles, will be a pain in the ass to have to sift through every other states articles to find the ones I need. The bot doesn't seem to have a problem with it now when it counts the assessments. --Holderca1 04:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the bot simply didn't look in/count the articles in the subcat. I have reverted the Texas articles back. Is there a way to get the bot to count those in subcats? I know bots have no problem with tagging articles in subcats with WP templates. I think it will be a lot easier on those in the respective state WPs to be able to go their specific folder rather than trying to find articles from every project. Any thoughts on a solution? --Holderca1 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Sorry if I interfered with your editing. Next time, please put {{inuse}} or {{inuse-section}} on the page before editing to reduce such edit conflicts. Again, I apologize for my confusion. --physicq210 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said prior to Part II voting that we already agreed at WT:NCSH (now archived info) that "NC x" would be used as the common name for linking and article text. If you look at Part II under North Carolina, you can see at the top that I stated that. As for South Carolina, I don't think it was voted on, so reverting that is fine. This poll was for the article titles anyway and not for text words I believe. I don't think that that was stated anywhere and was for Part III. Besides, I asked twice how to use brackets to get "NC x" in the voting option, but nobody said anything. Reguardless, "North Carolina x" was not chosen under any poll or any concensus, so I really don't know why that's listed under the style guide. --TinMan 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you read the above comment yet, but they were listed on Part II. --TinMan 23:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just read your response. No worries. --TinMan 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the convention. My only reservation is that the proposal seems incomplete, but in a subtle way that as of now I cannot describe. --physicq210 04:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially problematic edit to Interstate 335 (Minnesota)

I know I shouldn't be editing highway articles, but I found the article Interstate 335 (Minnesota) and I noticed a few things that needed to be corrected on it. Please review my change and let me know if there is anything wrong with it. If so, please revert it as soon as necessary. Again, I know it's bad form for me to edit highway articles, but "Minneapolis" was misspelled. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exit list guide

Hello, Rschen7754. Since you have commented on the design of exit lists in the past, you may be interested in contributing to the newly-formed exit list guide. Please give your input regarding the page as soon as possible.

Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

Are you aware that Jonathunder changed your exemption, and is now trying to change Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways) to match? --SPUI (T - C) 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do have a look at this. As SPUI was told on our Minnesota highway project, "Minnesota State Highway X" is accepted as common name by the Minnesota editors, and there is plenty of external evidence for it. Regards. Jonathunder 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox road

Hey. I've updated the instructions over at Template:Infobox road. Feel free to make any changes you see fit. Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 04:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

{{unblock|Wait... what did I vandalize?}} --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been accidental, even if it was slightly humorous. —freak(talk) 06:27, Sep. 30, 2006 (UTC)

I am terrably sorry. Anything I can do to apologize? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done as per your request, anything else? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boatload of unused redirects

Hi – question: as I was working on moving Ohio SR pages, I came across a boadload of unused redirects, most of which were created in Nov. '05. I found them here, and wondered if it's proper and acceptable for me to request their deletion. Please advise — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 17:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, none of them are being used, and when I did the page move, they all became double redirects. Therefore, I technically should fix them all, unless you think it's okay to just let them be. I just want to be sure I'm doing the right thing here. Thanks — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 12:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SRNC re: Washington

Hey, I just noticed that we finished Oregon and California about the same time. If you'd like, I could take care of Washington, since it seems like you have more work to do than me. -- NORTH ^talk 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- NORTH ^talk 21:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U. S. Highways Maps task force

I am in the process of making a more detailed version of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory, and would like to know if you want the maps task force listed. Please tell me if you would like to have the task force listed separately, under the main Highways entry, on the final version of the directory. Oh, and per conventions, it would help a lot if there were a place on the task force page for someone to add their names as a member of the task force. That's just a small point, however. Good luck on working on the highways. Badbilltucker 19:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects that need to be deleted

Question: What should we do if there's a redirect in the way of a move? Should I just notify you or another admin? Should I post it to WP:RM normally? Should we create a special requested moves page as a subpage of WP:SRNC? I'm sure some other non-admin has run into this problem already; I just need to know what I'm supposed to do.

The specific move I'm having trouble with is Route 18N (New Jersey) → New Jersey Route 18N. The page used to be titled "Pre-1927 ...", so the redirect at the P1 name has an edit history. -- NORTH ^talk 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the deletion. Just so you know, it did get taken care of as fast as it could, since I did exactly what you told me to -- I let you or another admin know once I know the problematic redirect existed. :-P -- NORTH ^talk 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also need help with:

-- NORTH ^talk 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One more for now... Sorry I have to do this in bits and pieces.

New Jersey Route 33 Business

-- NORTH ^talk 23:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mostly"

When I added "mostly" I meant that I have moved all the pages and made "most" (actually almost all) of the necessary redirects. You may remove the entries. Peter O. (Talk) 02:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Seicer

Take it to ANI. I'll be gone for a few days, but I will easily say that you will have a lot of support. I'm reverting the talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we're "complete idiots"

Or at least that's what User:David Gerard thinks on WP:AN/I. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Circle Tour Shields

I am in the process of determining whether the five shields for Great Lakes Circle Tour (visible at The Great Lakes Information Network but I am concerned and unsure of the copyright for them. The site (and its parent have copyrights on them so I believe that I cant post them in Commons under any free use license. I am unsure if fair use comes into play here. I have not uploaded the images I made to Wikipedia either until I can be sure this does not violate copyright. Can you give me your honest opinion of what the best approach would be - is it a fair use, or a free license? Thanks --• master_son^{Lets talk} 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Robot-assisted disambiguation: U.S. Highway 1"

I don't understand the edits your bot made with this edit summary, changing U.S. Highway 1 to U.S. Highway 1. U.S. Highway 1 is a redirect, not a disambiguation page, and these edits are a bad idea for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --NE2 03:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making edits like the last two on U.S. Route 17. I am reporting your bot on Wikipedia talk:Bots. --NE2 03:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, you should in fact stop the bot:

Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]].

In fact, your bot's edits should probably be reverted. --NE2 03:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you did does not seem like "fixing" to me: linking directly with no pipe should be preferred, as it produces smaller and cleaner code. --NE2 03:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be best in some states, where U.S. Route 101 is the common style. But in states where U.S. Highway 101 is the common style, I would think we should reflect that. This is the same principle as choosing British or American English. --NE2 03:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? I see some discussion about the State Route 17 style (that used by the state government?) being different from the more common Highway 17 style. However, there are some states where both the state government and common usage are the U.S. Highway style. Florida is a good example of that; as intra-state U.S. Routes, 92 and 192 are ideal cases. Saying U.S. Route 192 is not wrong, so it may be beneficial to place the article there for intra-system consistency, but U.S. Highway 192 is a much more common style in Florida, and so I would think it best to use that when linking to and writing about the road. --NE2 04:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Block

For the vandal that persistantly disrupted my discusiion page. By the way, are you going to make an article about the interstates/roads in Montana? That would be interesting since Montana doesn't have speed limits? Bearly541 04:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]