User talk:Kacie Jane/Archive 2

Hello Northenglish, I'm sorry that so many highway related things are stressing you out! It always seems like working in that topic causes a lot of issues, but I hope it doesn't cause you to leave Wikipedia. Consider taking some time away from it, or working on something else; there are many places on Wikipedia where your contributions would be most welcome, and would hopefully not cause you as much stress. Regardless of what you do, I hope things do improve. -- Natalya 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see how nasty SPUI is. Racoon Fox and I were talking about him. I don't think you got my latest message. The reason I want to keep the CR 676 (MC,NJ) article is because it is something very special to me. It is the street I live on. Otherwise, welcome back!HurricaneCraze32 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Things are more civil at the naming convention poll. Hopefully once that is done we can move on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 

Chili14 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little more exciting. You can help spread the WikiLove by smiling to somebody else, whether it be someone you have had some tension with in the past or a good wiki-friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page along with a kind message. Have fun!

Feel free to talk to me about anything!!!--Chili14 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I will be out of town until Wednesday, and quite busy until the 23rd due to me moving and such, but if you want to start a poll, you have my wishes on that as long as the poll stays open until the 20th of August (is that ample enough time?). I think it is best that we get a vote and see what others think on the future of the state route list. Thanks for your comments so far on the issue :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the speed at which these articles are being updated, cleaned up and images being created. We're making tremendous progress on creating, cleaning and improving the New Jersey road articles. Keep up the great work! Alansohn 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And since I typed the last thank you, I saw that you craeted the NJ road master list AND cleaned up the disaster at the Palisades Interstate Parkway. Bravo! It's amazing what can happen when we all start working together. Welcome back, hopefully for good. Alansohn 02:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

RacoonFox and I are leaving a note to get SPUI banned, permantly. We've so far come up with 10 reasons.I was hoping you had more.Our 10:

{{Erased due to inappropriate lines}}

Come up with some.HurricaneCraze32 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have warned the above user for using personal attacks, and have no interest in this form of action against SPUI. -- NORTH ^talk 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The language part is Racoon's i just copied what he wrote.HurricaneCraze32 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote those, now if you have a beef with the author, come after me. I stand with it, too. SPUI's very aggressive and nasty and he's REWARDED. it's people like him that ruin Wikipedia and wiki stuff in general for people, and they jump ship. However, it's not my fault for HurricaneCraze32 not editing our discussion. He said he just cut and paste it. Now, i thought he'd have the maturity and common-sense to do so. I was wrong. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice, but the Arbitration Committee does absolutely NOTHING. The adminstrators act the same way as he does. It's not any use to complain about SPUI's behaviour if the admins act the same way, now is it? Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but what can we do? this guy keeps ruining wikipedia for everyone, and he chases them off, or leaves them so frustated, they give up, and that's horrible. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 22:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the language, if you dont mind i erased those 10 and left the message there. Here's our new 13 (no curses or innappropriate stuff).

Reason 1- He attacks others if they have a separate idea from his.

Reason 2- He begs to have pages edit-protected so that no one can contribute, if he can't or doesn't want to.

Reason 3-He has several violations of ArbCom. See List of Ontario provincial highways,

Reason 4-He harasses and stalks others, makes up lies.

Reason 5-Puts up false information.

Such as:

He insists on calling the Ontario highways "Provincial Routes", when their LEGAL and official designation are "Kings Highways".The fact is that they were Provincial Highways from 1917 to June 1930.

Reason 6-He keeps nominating EVERY single template and category out there.

Reason 7-He is very rude to most users.

Reason 8-He is very angsty & hides behind the admins.

Reason 9-Doesn't let others contribute.

Reason 10-His user page is filled with innaproppiate things such as "****". It's very rude & vulgar.

Reason 11-He's been banned Fifty-nine times, mainly over Arbitary Violations.

Reason 12-He's forced lots of users to leave Wikipedia.

Reason 13-He's ruined many articles & projects.

I also changed my name just as reminder. (HC32).Mitchazenia 22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up your language, but I still disagree with about half of these points, and still don't have any desire to have SPUI banned permanently. -- NORTH ^talk 03:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my exit list for the Palisades Interstate Parkway. However there's one line that may be misleading:

"Entering/leaving Bear Mountain State Park
Passenger cars only north of this point" The whole road is for Passenger cars only, however, it's the roads that intersect with Palisades Intersate Parkway that are also strictly for Passenger cars as well. Lake Welch Parkway, Seven Lakes Drive, Perkins Memorial Drive, and Long Mountain Parkway(US 6) forbid trucks and commerical traffic too. DanTD 10:58, 15 August 2006 (EST)

I built the list by following through the SLD, and was equally astonished to see the number of junctions on Route 35, even excluding 500-series. There are several other NJ highway articles that specify 500-series routes as intersections. Is there an explicit policy that specifies what constitutes a "major junction"? Coming up with a mutually-agreeable policy will help deal with confusion on what (and what not) to include when creating infoboxes. It might specify what is included in infoboxes on articles for 1) Interstates / Parkways, 2) NJ routes; 3) County Routes. Alansohn 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

10-12 junctions per route is not unreasonable. I've seen you revert or change edits based on users that the user included minor junctions in an infobox. I would like to suggest that we develop a policy for all three levels I listed in my earlier note and publish it on WP:NJSCR, so that we -- and any newbies or uninitiated -- can refer to an agreed-upon standard, rather than an ad-hoc basis. i think you can see how much can be accomplished if we work together. Alansohn 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the reverts on minor junctions. My suggestion to develop a policy was not an issue of perceived "meanness", but an effort to develop a common policy. Alansohn 20:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, I wanted to follow up with yo regarding the routes included on the master list. Is there any reason that we shouldn't exclude proposed highways that were never built, such as Route 11 (New Jersey) and Route 14 (New Jersey), or defunct routes, e.g., Route 18N (New Jersey). Any thoughts? Alansohn 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, it's not you against SPUI (and -- less importantly -- the world). I think you will find that we can work collectively with other like-minded users to develop policies that would appeal to all of us. Alansohn 20:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that every can of worms need be reopened. I'm just suggesting that there is a group of reasonable-minded people who could be coordinated to address issues that have not been settled. Alansohn 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox road |state=NJ County |type=Middlesex |route=676 |alternate_name=N.Riverview Avenue, Duclos Lane, Woodbridge Avenue & Suttons Lane |length_mi=1.55 |length_ref=^[1] |length_round=2 |direction_a=South |starting_terminus=Edmund Street in Edison |junction=  CR 514 in Edison
  Route 27 in Edison/Highland Park |direction_b=North |ending_terminus=Truman Drive South in Edison |} I was hoping to do it for 600-secondary routes. Try your best.Mitchazenia 21:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mainly its for my CR 676 article. I wanted to give more information for the county route infoboxes.I looked if you could help.Mitchazenia 00:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Like my gallery for CR 676 now? I took all those pictures.Mitchazenia 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for asking you so many questions, I just get curious, NORTH

--24.228.70.72 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

I don't think I'll be apart of this anymore, I can't help anyone.

Ok, thankx for the replacement, I'm touched

Would Route 82 or Route 31 ne acceptable on the US Route 22 info box since Route 82 goes to the GSP? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also does Route 21 end at Route 1 & 9 and if so is it acceptable to put on the US 1&9 info box?

Would Route 440 be acceptable on the US Route 9 info box? since it's coming off the GSP too, or is that too much since it's ok the Pakrway info box?

Nextbarker 04:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Dan

Actually, I recently added the GSP shield in the Route 4 info box but it was taken away, by someone

Nextbarker 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Dan

Would Route 440 be acceptable on the US Route 9 info box? since it's coming off the GSP too, or is that too much since it's ok the Pakrway info box?

Nextbarker 16:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Dan

Why wouldn't US 22 be considered major at US 202/206, I-287 or the Parkway

True, but the only direction Interstate 287 can provide from Route 27 is South.

I had a feeling from the way some of these conversations were going that the definition of what constitutes a "major" junction in the infoboxes was going to cause problems. It's not that I'm "right" and you're "wrong", it's that the issue would benefit from mutually-agreed-upon standards. In addition to you, Nextbarker and SPUI, who else should be included. I'm willing to moderate this process. I will craete a subpage under NJSCR to handle the conversation and invite all of the individuals to solicit their input. Alansohn 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a discussion thread at WT:NJSCR to address standards for NJ road infoboxes and invite your participation. Over the past several weeks, we have made tremendous progress in cleaning up the articles for the State highways in New Jersey, especially with the expansion and addition of infoboxes to most of these articles. However, there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to what should be going in these infoboxes. I am creating this thread and inviting those users who have been active participants in editing these pages to come up with a mutually agreeable answer on the issues listed. I will take on the task of moderating this discussion, but I will add my 2 cents on these topics. We can add more questions if needed, but please, be civil. Alansohn 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add some more 3dwa templates but it looks like you did them all. Great work.

Should US 295 be included in the browse sequence? I suppose that since it is decommissioned and has no child routes (unlike US 830) then it might be ok to exclude it. But since it has an existing article, I don't see any harm in including it. What do you think? --Polaron | Talk 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know US Route 1 shield shouldn't be on the Interstate 287 info box since 287 ends 1 mile east, but what if the NJTP happens to be closed due to a BIG accident and the Car and TRUCK lanes were both closed and the drivers had to us US 1, I'd think US 1'd should be in the info box to with Interstate 287

This has finally come to an end. All we need now from the WP:NCSH project members is a vote on which convention we should use at the National State Route Naming Convention Poll. If you would, please (if you feel you have enough knowledge in the area) go to Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll#North Carolina and cast your vote. This should be the last time we should ever have to do this. Supermajority will decide what we should do. --TinMan 17:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Check for an email I sent regarding how we should proceed from the New Jersey stanpoint on WP:SRNC. Alansohn 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

After rereading your talk page above and seeing our earlier conversation regarding SPUI and your planned departure from Wikipedia, I am all the more disappointed that you seem to be unwilling to respond in full to the note I sent you. Was the process that created this "consensus" fair, reasonable and representative? Does WP:NJSCR have an existing stable consensus -- that you published on WP:NJSCR -- that is nearly complete? Do you truly believe that there is a difference of opinion regarding the naming convention for New Jersey roads? Does WP:NJSCR benefit by accepting the proposed "consensus"? Wouldn't Proposal I arbitrarily create additional work and conflict regarding the standard for county routes? I think that I have done enough for you and for WP:NJSCR to merit more than "I said most of what I need to say" and I had sincerely hoped that we could have a constructive dialogue on this subject. Alansohn 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I misinterpreted "I've received your e-mail, but have said most of what I need to say on WT:SRNC" but I read it as saying that there would be no response from you as you had alreadyspoken on the matter. I wrote to you directly because I respect what you have done, not only in creating WP:NJSCR, but in working on the articles and the infrastructure, and in dealing with the nitpicking about which routes to include on infoboxes. I expressed this to you directly, not because I was trying to curry favor on WT:SRNC, but because I thought that your input had helped move this project along. As I said in my email, I agree that the process by which the NJ standard was reached was not a constructive one. But I see that WP:SRNC is just the same screwed-up process led by a small group of people who can outbully even SPUI. I fail to see that what was reached was a real consensus and the bullying and shameless threats spewed by Rschen7754 to shove this pseudo-consensus down people's throats taints the whole process. You can look through anything I have written in my 20,000 or so Wikipedia edits and you will see disagreement from me, but you will never see a threat the likes of what Rschen7754 has thrown at me, SPUI and others who fail to march along his party line. As I stated on WT:SRNC (I had no choice but to do so there), I am disappointed that you seem to be trying to find a way to push off my good-faith concerns and approach to finding a true consensus by manufacturing a controversy that simply does not exist. By sending you my response as an email, I had hoped that we could discuss this issue behind the scenes and that we could work together to address the issues before pursuing this further in public on WT:SRNC. Worse than the fact that the conclusion harms WP:NJSCR without offering any benefit whatsoever, is the fact that I think that the process by which this "consensus" was achieved violates virtually every part of Wikipedia's ethos of achieving consenus. Alansohn 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that there might be some honest disagreement that you and I could address with an off-line discussion. While I attempted to deal with these issues honestly and forthrightly, I am disappointed that you have manufactured a supposed controversy regarding the stability of the naming convention for New Jersey roads. I am utterly confused that you could create WP:NJSCR, specify the naming convention youself, never propose altering that standard, and then state that you disagree with it while keeping a straight face. You have never answered any of the questions that I addressed to you. Was the process that created this "consensus" fair, reasonable and representative? Does WP:NJSCR have an existing stable consensus -- that you published on WP:NJSCR -- that is nearly complete? Do you truly believe that there is a difference of opinion regarding the naming convention for New Jersey roads? Does WP:NJSCR benefit by accepting the proposed "consensus"? Wouldn't Proposal I arbitrarily create additional work and conflict regarding the standard for county routes? I now find it hard to take anything you write at face value, but any vaguely honest answers to these questions would at least allow me to make a more educated decision. Alansohn 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually i started, though this is being a real pain to do.Mitchazenia 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I do ok with adding the NJ shields in to the exit list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, North – just curious which 2 Ohio articles you found titled under P2. I know of 1, which was recently created. Just want to know for the sake of keeping track. Thanks, and try to enjoy your break! — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 15:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I think I found it. The creator of Ohio State Highway 161 had originally created the article under a P2 name. I had contacted him, and he went ahead and created it under a P1 name, but the original article, while having the redirect info, still had the categorization info. I have fixed that, so the P2 name no longer shows on the category page. So unless there's something out there uncategorized, we only have 1 article under a P2 name. — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

Cool — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 20:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

County Route 615 for Sussex County-i started its article.Mitchazenia 15:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi North. I was just wondering why you removed the NY state route category from the Chautauqua CR 380 page. The reason that I felt (and the initial author of the page, who placed the article in the category, likely felt) that the cat was appropriate is that CR 380 entirely follows the former path of NY 380, so when the article is complete, it will cover both the present CR 380 and its predecessor, NY 380. Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:NYSR and WP:NYCR! I've seen your hard work over at WP:NJSCR, and I'm glad to have you aboard. Feel free to visit WT:NYSR, where some discussions about project/scope changes are currently being considered. Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 04:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see you started a new project. You are brave for taking on highways! Seems like a hotbed of controversy for some reason. I am only marginally involved with highway articles when they touch on articles about Oregon communities and vice versa, but I'll keep an eye on what your project is doing. You might want to give a big howdy over on the WikiProject Oregon talk page. We can probably add mention of your project on the project's mainpage as well. In fact, I think there's even a subproject on transportation that doesn't get much activity that you could join... Happy editing! Katr67 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey North. I noticed that you expressed interest in creating WikiProjects for both Oregon (which I see has come online already) and West Virginia on the voting talk page. If you need any SVG shields made for either state (as I see that Oregon only has GIFs and I don't think WV has their own shields yet), let me know. Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 19:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Here's the first WV SVG, made to the specifications of WVDOT's sign fabrication manual that I found via Google search: User:TwinsMetsFan/I. More SVGs will follow, with the hope that I can get the entire system (present and decom'd) done either tonight or tomorrow. --TMF ^{T - C} 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of the nastiness of that debate. Why something so trivial is so nasty, is just plain amazing. The move I've made are as prescribed by the poll, but if they're out of process, I've got lots of other things to do.

Let me know when this is over...

TTYL, --EngineerScotty 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you update the template for the Washington State Routes so they don't all go to redirects? I'd do it myself, but I can't figure out how the template works :(. Thanks. Sonic3KMaster^(talk) 15:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead... thanks! I just realized how tedious it is... let me know if there's redirects I need to delete. Also make sure the talk pages go back correctly, I think some got orphaned during one of the mass moves. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Im interisted in why you dont think Rt 72 is a major junction? Aspensti 22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey man no problem, Im just saying from my personal experience from someone who travels the GSP on a daily basis, and who owns a an office at exit 63, I would say that for a good part of the year, RT 72 (exit 63) is a MAJOR junction. Im not going to get involved into a whole debate about it, Im just saying, a LARGE percentage of New jersians, and new yorkers, utilize exit 63, ALOT. Aspensti 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why NJ 70 is listed there too there's only one entrance to Route 70 on the GSP South, and only one entrance to the GSP North from NJ 70 East. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.228.70.72 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I had always thought I had a more specific and final source, but I will point to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates, which makes the rather bland and nondefinitive statement that "there is no general consensus that the habit of linking separate years (that are date indications that only consist of a "year") should be abandoned, although most Wikipedians disfavour that habit currently." While links to full dates allow date preferences to take efefct, links to year-only dates rarely add useful information to an article. In a typical road article you or I might collaborate on, reading say "Route 18 connects to Highland Park, New Jersey via the Albany Street Bridge, which was reconstructed by the New Jersey Department of Transportation in 1987", a reader may jump to a link to another road, bridge, city, designer, builder, etc., but I (and most other readers) are unlikely to say, gee I wonder what happened in 1987 when the road was constructed. In an article about an event in a period of time, say "The Six-Day War in 1967 played a pivotal role in shaping Arab-Israeli relations", it would be far more relevant to include a link to the year, which would allow a reader to see the date in context. In general (as I see it), links to years are more likely to be symptoms of overlinking, rather than adding useful information. See the Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context for the general rules and why I find the year-only date links to be noise rather than data. Alansohn 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for shouting at that last message, NORTH

I was using the CAPS to read the message next time I'll turn it off. But there's no direct access from Route 440 North to US 9 Southbound cause once off the ramp you're still on Industrial Avenue West. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.228.70.72 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any direct access to the northbound GSP from Route 440, or is there? Northbound uses Route 9 to get there, and I don't know what the traffic southbound NJ 440 does for the GSP Northbound unless take the NJTP.

Northbound 440 that is

24.228.70.72 23:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Dan

On the GSP page mentioning NJ 70 recently, I don't think it's too big, reason being, there's only one exit for NJ 70 from the GSP Southbound and only one entrance to the GSP North from Route 70 East.

24.228.70.72 01:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

I took care of the deletion. In the future, if you let me or another admin know, it will be resolved faster. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Would NJ 36 be acceptable next to the GSP shield in Keyport there both in the same intersection both ways, and NJ 36 ends right at Route 35 Nortbound.

Where NJ 33 and NJ 34 meet would that be considered Farmingdale or Howell?

Good... we have a base point if NE2 blanks again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone's moved on. I'm off to a class, back in a few hours. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you interested in being nominated for adminship? I think that it would be helpfull in several areas that I know you work such as AfD and page moves. Given your good work over the last 3 months and very level headed behavior during the surprisingly testy debates over highway names I think that you are abn excellent candidate and that the consensus of people at RfA will agree. Eluchil404 07:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's xfD work on the first page of your project space contribs. I don't think that >20% of the voters will hold that its 2/3 weeks old against you. Eluchil404 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I deleted them. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean I totally understand your reasons, but personally I don't think you had to withdraw. But yes I think Freakofnurture is just holding a grudge. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

I think you acted wisely in deciding to withdraw. Although I opposed this time, I hope to support next time, because I hope there is a next time. Give things some time, avoid repeating the issues that were raised and all should go well. Best wishes and happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess just wait for a few months for WP:SRNC to be forgotten. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for misjudging the feeling in the community over WP:SRNC and putting you in a position where you felt that you had to withdraw. I hope that you find your wikibreak refreshing and come back eager to contribute. Best wishes! Eluchil404 07:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see your withdraw. I only wish I could have been there to express support. Although you and I have been at odds at some point or the other in the whole naming mess, you have enough experience under your belt. Hope to see you back there soon! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If needed I can possibly help with the page moves... I'll see how my schedule goes... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay... Myselfalso is doing some of the CT ones... when I get the time I'll help where needed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I got OK done last night and am working on FL... California browsing is undergoing changes right now at WT:CASH depending on what happens there, and with the WP:USRD new standard there, so nothing needs to be done right now... Thanks though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

See: Roads of Charleston, West Virginia. Not satisfied with screwing up the redirects to it, the IPuser is suggesting it be merged. Can you imagine the page of roads being squished into an already lengthy city page? I left him a warning on his user page about his redirect screwup, but let's nip this one in the bud and vote to decline. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to put in your two cents to the article? That would make it an overwhelming consensus to keep the page as-is and we can rid of the tag. This would also solve the issues for the other City Specific pages. I agree I may have jumped the gun with this IP user, but my frustrations seemed to have boiled over when I have had many pages that I created slapped with speedy-delete or various tags for expansion, etc. just minutes after I created them. They use programs that detect new pages or changes, and its awful how this is done - which is one reason why I no longer use VandalProof. I made a few mistakes that indicated to me that I shouldn't be using this program because I am one to make too quick of a judgement - I think at least. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I just thought I'd let you know that your recent edits to {{afdx}} produced an extra "See also" section that isn't properly <noinclude>'ed. I'd fix it myself, but I... uh... can't. Durn page protection. ;-) -- NORTH ^talk 00:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Thanks for letting me know. —Mets501 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi North, thanks for following up on the highway articles. As you can see I got tired of running across all the spelling errors and decided to fix them in all the roads in Oregon. I think I was pretty careful with the find and replace--I assume you mean the "WA" in the infobox? You're right about that, sorry. Do you also mean that I should have replaced, for example Ellensburg, WA with Ellensburg, or is that a refinement of your own? Katr67 20:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I cut and pasted the thing into Word, so yes I did use find and replace. In my defense, you will see that I had checked and put the postal abbreviations back in the infobox at the left (though I did get rid of the redirect), though as I mentioned above, I did miss the one at the bottom of the page. Drat. I can see that redirs aren't necessarily bad, but I've read that leaving postal abbreviations in articles is generally discouraged because readers who aren't from the U.S. might not know what they mean. Yeah, the strings of "WAs" or "Washingtons" weren't ideal in any case--I was just too lazy to go back and fix that. :P Thanks for taking care of it. Now all we need to do is clean up the syntax in all these articles. I'm grateful to whoever started them all, but the tone is definitely too casual and chatty in many of them. But now I need to step away from the computer and go outside and play! Happy editing! Katr67 21:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to know why you keep deleting the link i post on the NJ Route 60 page... just because it's not encyclopedic?? it provides a potential concept for the highway that never got built... I think it is relevant...And I based everything I did on that page, including the drawings, on what i read about the history of the highway... If someone were researching the highway, i think they would want to find something like that link and pictures... rather then just a few sentences about the mere proposal of the highway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Route 82 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the ones you listed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)