Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

As noted in my post - which some brilliant soul has already archived so nobody will ever see it again - I did go look at the Census Bureau site in an effort to clear up the discrepancy. Thanks for pointing me to the original census files - but they are huge, and it's really not worth my time to wade through all that. Appreciate your kind intention, though. Textorus (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgia State Route 135, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas Municipal Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the bannered routes articles is to have them all at one location. To break them out by state again defeats the whole purpose of the article. If the data is good, then simply port the data onto the bannered routes article and not at the state. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. They're still all listed there, just no longer redundantly. --NE2 01:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean that the bannered routes would be listed on the "bannered routes" page and not on the state page that you have moved them back too. Originally, before the advent of "bannered routes" they were scattered in various state pages and it was decided to redirected them all at one location if there were a lot of them... US 1 being one of those. Basically, I'm asking you to please move them back to the bannered routes page. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move them to the state page; they were already there. I merely moved the one-sentence histories. --NE2 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgia State Route 520, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darton College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orville E. Babcock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crystal Lake, Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're interested, but I created Boca Ciega Bay and Clam Bayou. Would be happy to have your expertise and assistance in fixing them up. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what happened to the content of the article which used to be at namespace:

History of Brevard County, Florida ?

It seems to me that A) there was content there that was not present in the Brevard County article, and B) the proper way to handle this situation would have been to create a more summarized section in the Brevard County article, and have a link to a comprehensive article on the "History of Brevard County, Florida".

There doesn't seem to be any history of the former content when one clicks on history. Could that content even be restored if it was determined that that is what should be done? I happen to be working on content in this area, and there is a category that goes along with this content. It seems to me that an article should exist, consistent with all the other cities and counties which are handled that way. Greg Bard (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. For some reason, I wasn't seeing it when I clicked on history. I found it and reverted it. Perhaps we should summarize better in the main article on Brevard, but there is sufficient content for it, and the content, due to its nature, merits its own comprehensive article. Greg Bard (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted back. As it is, there are two articles with essentially the same text. --NE2 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to deal with this, is to summarize the comprehensive article in sections in the Brevard County article, as I have stated. This is the way it is handled everywhere else. Are we going to have a problem here? Greg Bard (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we won't have a problem if the article is summarized properly. --NE2 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom in on this sign to your right. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a random meaningless ceremonial name. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a common name for the new bridge.

Here's some stuff about him: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1987-01-29/news/0100340224_1_benedict-ben-watts-district-5 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1993-03-28/news/9303250606_1_bill-benedict-bridge-johns-river http://www.zoominfo.com/p/C.A.-Benedict/256820266 --NE2 19:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. Hey, have you ever been to the old bridge? User:Ebyabe took some in 2010, and it looked like it was in better condition when he took it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was there in about 2000. I probably have photos lying around somewhere. --NE2 20:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you purposefully adding gaps in the route when it was all listed? --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add a gap, but directed readers to the SR 515 article to avoid a long redundancy and associated problems with different information in either one. --NE2 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I swore I detailed US 76 through Georgia before the jct list was moved to its own page. It didn't have a gap then; if the problem is different information, then simply cut-paste the one that is correct. It's better to lay it all out there without the user having jump to another article for just a section of road. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to watch both articles and copy changes from one to the other every time someone changes only one? Can you guarantee that you won't stop at some point? --NE2 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about a junction list, which for all intents and purposes shouldn't change much once in place. If something major changes, I am sure I or someone else will update the articles as needed. But there is no guarantee, which is true for all stand-alone road articles needing updates but haven't yet for various reasons. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it change? There are old alignments that could be added, perhaps other major non-state routes... U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey, a so-called "good article", does not include the junctions on the US 1 overlap. --NE2 20:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course change is a constant, but they don't change overnight. The next change on US 76 could be months away or years away. Comparing how other articles do it doesn't justify the laziness of it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not lazy to take into account long-term quality of the article. What's lazy is putting the same thing in three different articles and expecting others to keep them consistent (which they already weren't - SR 515 had a SR 5 Alt. that hasn't existed for quite some time, while neither SR 5 nor US 76 had it). --NE2 21:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, have it your way. I just hate all that effort deleted for sake of not wanting to maintain it and force the reader jump articles to simply follow one route. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is it's more effort to maintain it. --NE2 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have valid points here, but I side with Washu. I know this is old but still, this should go to other articles with this same thing. It would likely be a good idea to use a Sync mechanism for the concurrencies so when one page with the concurrency has its part changed, it auto-syncs to the non-changed one.--AC325 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 378, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SC 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake! This was another one that seemed to go by a different name than XYZ State Forest. I looked at the source you gave me with the state forest listings here and it lists Big Shoals Public Lands. Can you help me sort out what's what and make sure I don't make another bad mess up? Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems to me there should be an article on Florida State forests more generally? How many there are, who manages them, funding, etc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See page 7 of the PDF:

Fee simple title interest in these public lands is divided between the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) and the SRWMD. Management of the property is subdivided among three agencies: the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry (DOF), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks (Division), and the SRWMD. The DOF holds the Board lease on the northern 1,673 acres of the Hamilton County property known as Big Shoals State Forest. The Division holds the Board lease for the southwest (1,012 acres) portion ofthe property within Hamilton County and for a smaller parcel (288 acres) located on the opposite side of the Suwannee River in Columbia County. The SRWMD owns the southeast 983 acres of the Hamilton County portion of the property and leases the northern half of this area to the Division. The lands under lease to the Division comprise Big Shoals State Park. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) regulate recreational hunting on the roughly 2,140-acre Big Shoals Wildlife Management Area (WMA), which includes the DOF property and a portion of SRWMD land. The Agency Boundaries Map delineates these jurisdictional boundaries.

It appears that the BSPL includes the non-overlapping BSSP and BSSF, with the BSWMA covering most of the BSSF, a small part of the BSSP, and the rest of the BSPL that's in neither. There's also a Big Shoals Conservation Area to the northeast (see map p. 68), which also seems to be owned by the SRWMD. --NE2 19:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a stab at it when I'm a little fresher. Thanks so much for your help!!! Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I redirected this to Fort Walton Beach, but I see it noted various places. Is it it's own community? I'm kind of surprised there is no article on it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just the part of Walton County south of the Choctawhatchee/Intracoastal: http://www.visitflorida.com/en-us/cities/south-walton.html http://www.visitsouthwalton.com/ FWB is in Okaloosa County, so it's not in South Walton. Emerald Coast might be the best target for now. --NE2 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you Believe everything you see on Google Maps??? I don't. So the message on the route's talk page, is also disputed in my opinion because I think someone but the wrong Route number on the Map. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what --NE2 04:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You posted that it used to be apart of State Route 49 and that is what is What I was talking about above. Sorry if I confused you. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted something else too. --NE2 06:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting to you about this only because you created the I-494 redirect back in 2007. There seem to have been two I-494 proposals, the second along Lake Shore Drive about the same time as the first. I'm assuming that these files are legit enough regarding the second: text map (the map is linked from the text but the link on the archive version doesn't work; a later map exists but I can't find its context, only an old link on Kurumi's page). If agreed, could the redirect become a DAB page to the Crosstown and LSD articles, with the above info added to the History section of LSD's? Mapsax (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. --NE2 01:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?? You don't sound too enthusiastic about it.... Mapsax (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mississippi Highway 16 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MS 1

Mississippi Highway 18 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grand Gulf State Park

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Old Hillsborough County Courthouse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Courthouse''' was constructed in 1892 in the block bounded by Madison Street, Lafayette Street (now [[Kennedy Boulevard (Tampa)|Kennedy Boulevard]], Florida Avenue, and Franklin Street. This

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Road data/strings/USA/IA was correct. There's only one blue link for any county road in all of Iowa: County Road 105 (Iowa), which redirects to Iowa Highway 105. The expected target of County Road 99 (Iowa), Iowa Highway 99 has not been created yet. In any case, the links don't include the county name because it's a statewide system. There are no other links to "turn blue" at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 07:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read it and weep. --NE2 07:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see. But this confusion is likely to come up again, so I just repointed them to Lincoln-Douglas debates, which has a list of the sites. WilyD 16:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, NE2.

I think I got all of your history undeletions, please let me know if I missed any. Also, it's not in the preloaded form but for histories behind redirects it would be a huge boon to link the dynamic "no redirect" link (see here) in the request so we don't end up wondering where the deleted content is (because we're looking at the history for the target!). LMK if I can get any others for you, if you just want to dump a slew of links on a talk page instead of using that pre-loader. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I got all for now, though in a few months I may come across another batch. --NE2 20:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Protonk: Turns out I found another: County Road 615 (Indian River County, Florida) --NE2 21:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [1], where do you see CR TT? According to the 2011 IDOT map, it's CR 59. Plus, I've only ever seen one CR shield in Rock Island County, and it was up near the Whiteside County line on IL 84, which shows it as CR 57 now. –Fredddie™ 21:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - it's also marked at the other end. I also see signs for CRs A to E going south off IL 92 in that area. (CR A is marked only at the south end, with a patch over something else.) --NE2 21:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Routing of the Great River Road, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IL 9 and IL 17 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite CAstat has been nominated for merging with Template:CalStats. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Missouri Route 76, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Table Rock State Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and will be more careful. Cheers. Faizan 06:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ne2,

Why did you revert my edit? It redirected those pages to the right article. Robert4565 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced links to the correct topic with links to a different related topic. SR 14 Truck redirects to a section of SR 14 because there's info there. If the other truck routes get appropriate mentions, they too can be redirected. (What you did was not redirecting.) --NE2 21:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE2,

Thank you for making that correction. I'm sorry about that mistake. Robert4565 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

West Virginia Route 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bethany College, Marshall County Airport and Newport, OH

Illinois Route 127 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Horseshoe Lake (Illinois)

List of Inter-County Highways in Minnesota (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pelican Lake (Minnesota)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

U.S. Route 50 in Virginia

added links pointing to Fair Oaks, VA and Fair Oaks, Virginia

West Virginia Route 3

added links pointing to Union, WV and Union, West Virginia

Frostburg, Maryland

added a link pointing to Palace Theatre

Ice Mountain

added a link pointing to Wye

West Virginia Route 28

added a link pointing to Grant County Airport

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed I have reversed some of your edits. The reason for the reversal of the redirects to US 321 is because its an article for the entire route, and when you redirect it by state, you are putting them in the middle of the article... where the user will then be forced to scroll up to read from the beginning. The article is not written as three articles in one, it is one article for all three states together. So please, don't try to departmentalize the article with redirects when it is not written that way.

As for the requested split for US 117, the hidden note was unneeded. The purpose of the banner is to begin discussion... thus you should start the conversation on it, otherwise I will delete the banner inactivity on your part. Keep in mind, if it is discussed and approved, then someone will have to create that article with meaningful information for it; right now there is just three sentences, so that is a lot to expand on to make this a worthwhile split. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard practice for route in state redirects. Reverted.

As for US 117, best would be mentioning it in the history for US 158. Right now it's being put in a totally unrelated article. --NE2 00:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Write that in the discussion you just setup, not in the hidden notes for some other editor to find. Show me where it is standard practice to confuse readers to the middle of an article for them to scroll-up on? --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every bloody redirect from [route] in [state] redirects to the section. --NE2 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you been told that "everybody does it" is not a viable answer as to why? I ask again, where is the rule you stating that exists? --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ask you where the rule saying don't do it is. The fact that section redirects work at all is a good enough counterexample. --NE2 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: we've both reverted thrice. So the 3RR applies now (as well as the rule against vandalism, which certainly applies to your removal of my comment if nothing else). --NE2 02:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: [3] --NE2 02:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you could not find anything to prove your point, I get it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except every other fucking redirect. Bugger off. --NE2 03:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The change of redirect on US 11 Truck doesn't bother me, though I question why you redirect US 19 Truck to it as well. Anywho, I don't know why you insist on writting hidden comments on US 117 when you created a discussion thread for the split, which is why I keep deleting it... you need to argue why you want the article to split and let others get in on the discussion. Just creating the split discussion with no discussion is a pointless thing to do and will likely be removed by a bot or someone else (I've been nice so far on that, I want you to start that discussion). Regarding the redirects, again when a user hits the article, they are not departmentalize but it is one complete article; it's like opening a book and starting at chapter 8. Just because you have seen this on some others doesn't make it right. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where else did I make those comments? --NE2 03:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hidden comment when you do this: "!--this has no relation to the current route, and would fit better as a section of the US 158 article-->" Nobody is going to read that unless they are editing the page and I kept replying in my comment reverts this fact. You have to open the discussion in the banner link you added to get the ball rolling; otherwise your split request will go nowhere. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just said that I "created a discussion thread for the split". Anyway, I've done the split/merge, putting the info in U.S. Route 158#History where it makes more sense. --NE2 03:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so much for discussing it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to discuss it, you could have. --NE2 03:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't start a discussion page. You just put the banner up and left a hidden comment; I saw it only because that article is under my watch (like most highways in the Carolinas). You just now unilaterally moved it now. I wasn't totally against the move, but I wanted to know what others may say about it, just like we did with SR 159. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could have started a discussion on the talk page. Instead you went on about the placement of my comment. --NE2 03:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my place to start the conversation for you since I had no strong feelings about it; unlike SR 159, where I did take the lead on discussion for you. I was trying to get you to do it with my reverts and revert comments, then things started to spiral out of hand. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the U.S. Route 360 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Brickell Avenue

added a link pointing to Address

Ohio State Route 32

added a link pointing to Pike Lake State Park

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could we at least pretend that since I live in North Carolina that maybe I know something about the roads in the state. I know we don't agree on various things, but I tend to have been to some of these places. Here are some pictures: Soco Gap, Black Mountain Gap (NC 128), Craven Gap (NC 694), Linville Falls Road Flyover of NC 183 (Blue Ridge Parkway spur also used) and Rockfish Gap (w/USBR 76). I've driven on most of the BRP in North Carolina and stopped at Rockfish Gap on a drive to Charlottesville last year. I appreciate you thanking me after I showed you undeniable proof, but I can't make changes and reply to every hidden comment in the comment thread box, and having conversations in hidden text within the article is not good wiki standards. I am not against all your edits, but I wish you could be more collaborative with others and have a little leap of faith. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I was just trying to get it done. Now go and apply your own standards. --NE2 03:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NE2. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of State Route 713 (Virginia 1922-1933), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of State Route 606 (Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Virginia State Route 606 (Fairfax and Loudoun Counties). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virginia State Route 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gloucester Historic District. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- Just a FYI, I found some refs on the name origin of Clinchco. Let me know how to proceed as I see the article has a discuss tag.Coal town guy (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the books you linked on the talk page, I don't see anything saying what Clinchco was named for. (And remember, this would have to trump an existing reference that says it's named for the railroad.) --NE2 16:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The existing ref is a book, why would that need to be trumped?? If you mean the quality of a ref, no diff hoestly. However I see the point that yes, a ref that explicitly states, oh by the way, Clinchco was named for a coal company even though the coal company name is virtually the same as the town and the Dickenson County Coal Miners Memorial is in front of the Clinchco post office, it could be in some remote and utterly implausible way named after who knows.........thought I would look and see, thanks!Coal town guy (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Virginia State Route 28

added links pointing to Oak Grove, VA and Oak Grove, Virginia

Virginia State Route 42

added a link pointing to Dayton Historic District

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your list of the highest bridges in Florida; Yes, the US 19 Bridge over the Cross Florida Barge Canal was higher before the reconstruction. I don't remember how much higher it was, but it was higher. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just checked those two links. My bad! Thanks!

Seems like it is some other "Alligator Creek" whose page is still uncreated. The particular links are ambiguous again! 7Sidz (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your revert as 1) the major junctions I had did cover all major cities along the route and 2) I can find no policy that major junctions should be evenly spaced and it's not really possible because highways simply aren't built to have evenly spaced junctions with major roads/highways. I've explained the reasoning for the change on the article's talk page. Please discuss any objections you may have to the change at Talk:Interstate 4#Major junctions (infobox). AHeneen (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#How did we end up with the "Stations along X Railroad lines" categories?. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. I've moved on. --NE2 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former primary state highways in Virginia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Howardsville, Virginia and Howardsville, VA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former primary state highways in Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spotsylvania, VA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of former primary state highways in Virginia (Bristol District) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• with a portion on Goodson and Mary Streets becoming a realigned [[US 421 (VA)|US 421]].<ref>{{CTB minutes|12-1966-01|pages=17-19</ref> The remaining {{convert|3|mi}} of SR 76 lying outside

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a glass sock? SlightSmile 19:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a glass slipper but it makes you hungry. --NE2 20:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I get it now thanks. I didn't know those were called glass slippers. I guess that's one thing I don't mind being out to lunch about. SlightSmile 20:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are. --NE2 21:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was a pun! Or whatever, I get the drift anyways what you're talking about. Thanks for explaining. SlightSmile 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a density map would be more useful. I considered that but thought a total population map was slightly better. Counties are not like states. A county with a high overall population will also have a high density, since there is relatively little variation in area (granted Union County and Palm Beach County differ greatly, but hear me out). Perhaps a better way to say this might be both a total population map and a population density map would both illustrate the urbanization and density of a county. There are no high-population counties in Florida that are not high-density and there are no low-population counties that are not low density. Plus, people can just see the relative size of the county and imagine its density. I might make a density map later, though (if someone else doesn't do it first). It would end up looking quite similar to the total population map.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 95 in Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Lee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the highway redirects, I had just done like 50 and I was in a rhythm. Did you fix them already or should I do that? spiderjerky (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed them already. (PS: if you wait a few days a bot should come around and fix double redirects.) --NE2 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...just wondering if you could explain this reverted edit. I don't see anything wrong with it, but I was wondering what you thought. Regards — c16sh (speak up) 21:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you pipe East Falls Church to Falls Church? The former is an unincorporated part of Arlington County. The other changes are essentially meaningless. --NE2 21:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virginia Byway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Round Hill, Virginia, Hillsboro, Virginia and Newport, Virginia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Virginia Byway may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |[[Virginia State Route 620 (Fairfax County)|Virginia State Route 620]] )Braddock Road) near [[Centreville, VA|Centreville]] to [[SR 123 (VA)|SR 123]] (Ox Road) at [[Donovans Corner,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virginia Byway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frogtown, VA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Caitlin snow. Since you had some involvement with the Caitlin snow redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. J Greb (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former primary state highways in Virginia (Culpeper and Northern Virginia Districts), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flint Hill, VA and Flint Hill, Virginia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do sincerely regret if I have come across as bullying in any way. I have been frustrated lately with the growing number of disambiguation links, and the difficulty they pose for readers - there have been months where I have fixed 10,000 links or more, and the overall number needing to be fixed still continues to rise. I appreciate the fact that you have been very good about fixing the links for which you get notices (you can see how easy it is to inadvertently link to the wrong page), and I wish more editors would follow your example in that. In my determination to enforce guidelines designed to minimize confusion and error, I have failed to effectively convey the volume of discussion and reasoning which has gone into making those guidelines. Again, I apologize, and I hope that we can work together productively in the future. bd2412 T 13:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, I suppose. I'm not big on apologies in either direction.

Question: if your aim is to make disambiguation links easier to fix, why would you want to put the County Road 3 (Florida) links in with those of other states? Most regular Florida editors know enough to not link to County Road 3, but may think the former will be unambiguous enough (as it usually is in Florida). This is very similar to place names: I wouldn't link to Flint Hill, but as you can see above I did link to Flint Hill, Virginia. (Unfortunately the former didn't link to the latter, but IIRC there's a bot that generates lists of Foo disambiguations without links to existing Foo (Bar) or Foo, Bar pages for manual fixing.) --NE2 13:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a single disambiguation page existed for all roads titled "County Road 3", I would think that it would have subsections for states with multiple roads by that name. The problem here, however, is not with searching but with linking. Virtually all disambiguation pages in Wikipedia (something like 99.996%) are at a title that is either a base page name like Phoenix or a page with a "(disambiguation)" title like George Washington (disambiguation). Editors (and disambiguators) can therefore expect that a page with a different disambiguator in the title, like "(Florida)", is not a disambiguation page but a final target using a disambiguator to distinguish the page from another title like a potential County Road 3 (Indiana). Of course, there are redirects with other disambiguators (like Phoenix (album) and Phoenix (film), which point to the disambiguation page, Phoenix, but it's easier for disambiguators to see and fix everything pointing to a single page, Phoenix than to address multiple disambiguation pages for different kinds of media named "Phoenix". If there are other county roads in other states with the same numbers (which seems inevitable), then eventually there will be a disambiguation page at County Road 3, and editors erroneously linking to that page for a road in Florida might assume that they can "fix" the error merely by adding "(Florida)" to the link. They might do that anyway, but it will be easier for disambiguators to fix errors en masse if all roads lead to one target, rather than there being multiple disambiguation pages for the same title in different places. bd2412 T 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get this 99.996% figure? I would have thought there were a lot more City, State place name disambiguations. --NE2 14:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean pages like Jefferson Township, Pennsylvania? Those are still at what we would consider the base page name, i.e., not using a disambiguator in parentheses. The use of a parenthetical is supposed to have a special significance, to the effect that "Foo" might be ambiguous, but "Foo (bar)" is the specific page you are looking for, the final stop. bd2412 T 14:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply another way of disambiguating. --NE2 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is the most common way - comma disambiguation is pretty much limited to geographic entities, and even some of those also requite a parenthetical to completely disambiguate from other titles (e.g. Saugerties, New York, and Saugerties (village), New York). bd2412 T 14:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just as County Road 3 (Florida) requires a county name. --NE2 14:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be just as true if the disambiguation page were at County Road 3, since adding "(Florida)" does not get you to a final destination - although some readers might expect that it would. At this point, it is just an extra word. bd2412 T 15:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is just as true for place names. Yawn. --NE2 15:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to bore you. bd2412 T 16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Wellington Road should put to rest any misconceptions that there's a functional difference between parenthetical and comma disambiguation. --NE2 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers who are familiar with Wikipedia will know that the entries with commas are municipal entities (i.e. that Wellington Road, Cork and Wellington Road, South Australia are not merely the names of actual roads), and those with parentheses are some other kind of thing; Wellington Road (Perry Barr) requires further information on the disambiguation page precisely because it is not a road. In each case, of course, either the comma disambiguator or the parenthetical disambiguator indicates that the page to which it points is the final target, an article and not merely another disambiguation page. Now, here's the really interesting part. Wellington Road (Perry Barr) is a stadium, but is located off of a road named "Wellington Road" - which is itself merely an old designation for a relatively short stretch of A4040 road. I presume that the topic is not independently notable; if it was, then we would have an additional meaning for "Wellington Road" (and, more specifically, an additional meaning for the title Wellington Road (Perry Barr), which could then refer either to the stadium or to the stretch of road). In that case, would it make more sense to add a link to A4040 road in the existing Wellington Road disambiguation page, or to create an entirely new disambiguation page with the title Wellington Road (Perry Barr), moving the article on the stadium to something like Wellington Road (Perry Barr stadium)? bd2412 T 16:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? "Wellington Road (Bóthar Wellington in Irish) is an inner-city stretch of road..." "Wellington Road / Langhorne Creek Road is a South Australian secondary road..." --NE2 16:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppose someone wanted to create a separate disambiguation page for Wellington Road (North America), listing only the two uses that are in North America. Would that be appropriate, in your view? bd2412 T 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wouldn't be inappropriate, though I wouldn't see much of a point. What does this have to do with comma disambiguation? --NE2 17:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE2, please refrain from listing secondary roads (example: SR 1000) in the junction lists if you decide to do any more North Carolina highway articles. Unless the highway sign specifically lists it (which in rare cases like along US 64 it does), it serves no beneficial directional purpose for most people (the number system is used by state for mostly administration purposes; usually located on various signage {street sign, stop sign, random post} at interchange in very small numbers). Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"historical routes belong in history section" - what the fuck? Oh well, you own the state and apparently Tennessee; do what you want. --NE2 22:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't what I wanted to talk about on your page, but since you brought it up... the value of placing historical routes in the jct list notes column is unnecessary details at a very road geek level. The notes column should include things like: type of junction, also goes to sites, construction status, etc. The historical routes should be written about in the history section of the article, not identified at a interchange that use to be a terminus for a pre-1930 state highway. I don't mind you making updates in the Carolinas or Tennessee articles, but if they are on my watch list, I will follow-up, if necessary. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the history of an intersecting road belong in the history of this road? The idea is to link someone reading the junction list to the description of the former importance of the road. --NE2 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't warrant being even in the history section of the road, then it's clutter. The question "is this relevant to the article" should come first before adding something in hopes that it will intrigue a reader to read about a historic road. To give a different example, I also dealt with an issue where an editor added Ralph T. Troy as a notable person in Boone, North Carolina; I read in more of this person I never heard of to find he was a former mayor from Louisiana and he happened to stay in Boone for several years after he long left office... he didn't do anything note worthy while living in Boone so it wasn't relevant to have him listed in the Boone article. We can't list every person that passed through a town and we can't list every historic road that crossed paths 50+ years ago on a junction list, it's just not relevant. I said my piece, you may sort of agree with me or not. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't warrant being in the history of THIS ROAD because it's another road. But go on, keep applying your anal standards. It's your state; you own it. --NE2 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure chatting with you too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You too. Shame chat isn't all we do here. --NE2 02:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince William Parkway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wellington Road. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your Edits may have "improved" the article, but you removed cities. And changed unnecessary things.

Also Thank You for all the other edits to the other Highway articles. ACase0000 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed cities that I couldn't find on signs in Google street view. --NE2 22:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://media.wfyi.org/acrossIndiana/segments.asp?episode=-1916013356

I am no longer in IN, but this should help. My camera operator and I followed Skidmore to the location in the video. I couldn't find it on my own. I am driving the black van through the ford in the video. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's near Vernon, not Dupont, actually.----Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottandrewhutchins: I think this is it. Nothing to do with SR 7, but it may have carried SR 3 before 1933. --NE2 22:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cordele, Georgia page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody AWB bug. Fuck it. --NE2 00:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your merge suggestion, and voted against it. As BL 80 in Winnemucca is signed along three separate routes (US 95, SR 289, SR 794), all of which currently have articles, and BL 80 is essentially a redirect (in fact it was, but I decided, based on your suggestion, to make it more of a disambiguation page), I don't see any reason to merge them (plus all Nevada SR's currently have their own article regardless of co-signed BL's). Famartin (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SR 289 and SR 794 should both redirect to BL 80 (or at least the latter; the former has a separate portion). They are the same road and it's incredibly silly to duplicate the information. --NE2 08:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should argue this on the talk page; however, they are in fact separate roads (if you look at a map, you will notice this). SR 289 follows Winnemucca Boulevard, then East Second Street, with only the first 0.5 mile co-signed as BL 80. BL 80 turns right onto SR 794 from Winnemucca Blvd. BL 80 is also co-signed with US 95 for 1.6 miles, west of the end of SR 289. Also, all Nevada BL's which are cosigned with SR's redirect to the SR, not the other way around. You should check Nevada state highway precedent on Wikipedia before making such a suggestion. Famartin (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is no excuse for stupidity. --NE2 08:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we probably should move this (all) to the SR 794 talk page, but why is it stupid? NDOT considers the SR's to be the "real" roads; BL's are signed for convenience/tourism aspects and cannot be found in NDOT's inventory anywhere. Famartin (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason Nevada State Route 593 redirects: it's part of a longer route that doesn't need duplication. PS: I don't really care; just get off my lawn. --NE2 09:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That redirects to a single continuous road of which the SR is a part. Anyone looking at a map can see that SR 794 is a separate roadway from the rest of the BL. And, if you are going dispense with further discussion by saying "get off my lawn", then I'll respond in kind and remove your merge suggestion. Famartin (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kentucky Route 210, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green River Reservoir State Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were the original perpetrator of Template:Cite CAstat back in 2007. I'm in the process of merging this with Template:CalStats as per some merge discussion. There are a few things I can't work out from looking, maybe you can remember.

• There is a parameter passed of |ex=. Apart from being a reference to an extraordinary session of the legislature, does it also form part of the key for Cite CAstat/title? (like year ex ch)
• There is a parameter passed of |res=. This is supposed to be a resolution number, but what is confusing me is that the title record (where it exists) has within its text an entirely different resolution number.
• Ditto for |hr=

My guess is that these were ideas which seemed good at the time but that never got fully developed. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 22:36, wikitime= 14:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, I don't remember. You do know you can do this, right? --NE2 15:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Claysville, Harrison County, Kentucky

added a link pointing to Licking River

List of state highways in Kentucky (1–999)

added a link pointing to KY 3

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the piping of Dinosaur World (Florida) to Dinosaur World (theme parks) to avoid a redirect. You undid that revision and stated “not the way to handle that”. What did I do wrong? Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FieldMarine: You avoided a redirect. Please see WP:R2D. --NE2 17:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the short overlap of U.S. Route 17 in Florida and Clay CR 214 between Decoy Road and Sungarden Road. It's not signed as an overlap. I discovered it when I was driving from New York City and spotted a US 17 sign with an erroneous cardinal direction just south of Decoy Road. It said "EAST" US 17 when it should've said "South." Thanks for the mileage, BTW. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NE2!!! Did you move the former Tennessee State Route 42 into the list with the current routes? Just wondering who did it because it doesn't Belong in the current routes list. ACase0000 (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't (check the history), but it has a gray background, meaning it's former. --NE2 14:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did check history but I couldn't find out who did it. But put all differences and arguments aside it still shouldn't be in current routes when there is a former section. I came to you for help because you are experienced in roads. ACase0000 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apopka was out of order. I was trying to fix the rank. For some reason, the Rank column won't sort properly. But if you sort the population column you'll see that the Rank numbers are now correct. Do you know how to fix the Rank sorting and fix Apopka's order at the same time?Inkan1969 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You change the numbers. I have no idea why you added a bunch of random formatting and removed a bunch of templates. --NE2 22:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that formatting on purpose. I used the beta version of editing. Using that, the only way I could change the number is by changing the box from "header box" to "content box", changing the number, and then turning it back to "header box".

I'm afraid I'm really busy for the next two days. Would you be able to change the numbers right now?Inkan1969 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not a fan of that column in the first place (seems redundant to population). --NE2 22:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, NE2! Name's Mike, but you can call me Mike. Don't mind the username, I know it's stupid, and I want to change it.

I'm trying to fix the articles that exist for CTfastrak and its stations, and saw that you're a common contributor to transportation articles and are a member of WikiProject Buses. I'd love your help if you've got the time. School's just about done for me for the semester, and I start back up on 22 January 2015. Any time you've got between now and then would be greatly appreciated to write this thing.

Thanks so much for reading and considering this, and I hope to hear from you soon.

(TwilightKing81 19:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John B. Connally Unit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maximum-security prison. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 190 in Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabine River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asume that Manasota, Florida is in Charlotte County, not Sarasota County? In the article you wrote Sarasota, but then you used the navbox and category for Charlotte. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks. In the future, you can check: click the coordinates link, then choose ACME Mapper topo. --NE2 14:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain this revert? Every link for SR A1A redirects to one page for all of A1A, and the same is true for the routes that I changed in the edit. — c16sh (speak up) 23:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 30As are different routes that could redirect to different places in the future. --NE2 23:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but why revert all of the changes when all but one are correct? — c16sh (speak up) 15:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other changes were merely cosmetic, neither correct nor incorrect. --NE2 17:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A road in a park that charges an entry fee is a toll road? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FHWA lists it: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tollpage/t1part4.cfm --NE2 23:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This 1906 bridge wasn't a toll bridge. It was always owned by the towns. A bridge in a different location near-by was a toll bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the article is rather unclear about the locations being different, but an 1869 map confirms. --NE2 11:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. I never saw anything about where the previous bridge was, but it apparently existed for a time at least during the time the new bridge was built. I saw nothing about when the old bridge was removed. It's an open question whether such a replacement is a replacement or a new structure of new lineage. For instance, the current "Arch Bridge", which is nothing of the kind, is, I think, a few hundred feet downstream of the real Arch Bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 35W (Texas), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hillsboro Municipal Airport. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you are moving AfC drafts to the mainspace using the move button. While this works, it leaves a messy templated article, and it doesn't leave the correct notices at AfC. If you have over 500 mainspace edits, you can join Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation and get access to the helper script which makes it a whole lot easier. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or I could just move them. --NE2 20:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You sure can, but please at least remove the AfC templates from them? I'm just trying to make this easier for you, it's not a rule. The script lets you click accept and it does everything else (moves, cleans up, adds reflists, etc). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly don't see that big perfectly cut vacant lot along side of US 90 that's only fenced up until after the southeast corner of Chaffee Road? Because to me that's clearly the right-of-way for future eastbound lanes. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the fenced-in private property belonging to a trailer company? --NE2 18:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that, but the property in front of it that's not fenced in. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the highway ROW. How is it clearly the ROW for future eastbound lanes? Alternate hypothesis: they could put a sidewalk there. Or just keep the drainage ditch that's currently there. --NE2 04:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have to admit that's pretty wide for a mere sidewalk or drainage ditch. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have to. This is clearly your original research and likely wrong to boot. --NE2 03:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research?" Are you kidding me? This clearing has to be at least two car widths. At this point, I'd like to see something from FDOT #2 or some Jacksonville-area news service about this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that tells you is that it's wide enough to add another lane if they put the drainage ditch into a pipe. It says nothing about FDOT's actual plans. --NE2 05:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand what you need to have happen on the Lake Poinsett article and particularly the history merge. Have you already merged the articles? Does the entire history need to be merged? Just to protect it, I have removed the speedy template. The redirect should be working. Let me know. Thanks JodyB _talk 16:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what's going on with the history. But to keep the old history of Lake Poinsett (Florida) the history needs to be merged before moving, right? --NE2 17:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you ultimately want to end up with the article at (Florida) right? I'm going to punt this over to the people at the Wikiproject that handles merges. I think they would be best suited for it. It may just be me but history merges seem awful convoluted and I don't want to mess it up. I'll stay in touch. JodyB _talk 17:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems like the best title for it. The county is unnecessary. --NE2 17:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kudos to TexasAndroid for the fix. JodyB _talk 19:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 66 in Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MacArthur Bridge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is regarding Interstate 164. The top of the article says it's now part of I-69, which is why I put a merge template on the article. But you're saying that part of the highway still is Interstate 164. No source I know, not even Google Earth, agrees. Please fix the top of the article if possible. Georgia guy (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the route description: "A short .69 miles (1.11 km) section of I-164 west of US 41 is still designated as I-164, but is not signed." It's actually more complicated, in that the planned route for I-69 south across the Ohio River into Kentucky leaves I-164 around exit 3, meaning that not only this 0.69 mi piece but another 3 miles or so will either return to being I-164 or (more likely IMO) be something like I-169. That would be the proper target for a merge when the Ohio River bridge is built. Merging it now would just make it more complicated in the future. --NE2 21:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Interstate 164 was". Can you re-word it as much as possible?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. It was a spur of I-64. Now it's a tiny stub off the end of I-69. --NE2 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thus you should add to the beginning what it is. Georgia guy (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 66 in Missouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Leonard Wood. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been involved in preliminary discussions about splitting the article on Lhasa into two: one on the small city and one on the larger prefecture-level city. This is to invite you to contribute to the discussion on User talk:Aymatth2/Lhasa (prefecture-level city)#Proposed move. Please feel free to invite anyone else you feel would be interested. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 165, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monroe Airport. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your work uncovering, reporting, and cleaning up after the San Juan Islands hoaxer. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me? You can't see that the link I posted shows adequate evidence that it was an old rest area with barely any facilities? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been any number of things. But no matter - I found and will add a better source. --NE2 03:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the old FDOT road map archives shown on the AARoads Forum last night. What would be even better is if we could get an exact date it was closed. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Named state highways in Oregon, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your undo revision of my changing the header from your original one of "‎I don't give a shit, but you might" to "Discussion about named highways in Oregon." Your title was unhelpful and unnecessarily vulgar, whereas mine was more descriptive of the content under the header. You are welcome to change the title to something that better describes the content under the header, but you are not welcome to revert the title to your crass creation just because you don't like it.  VC  18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a shit if you like it. --NE2 19:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, get the bug out of your butt, everyone isn't your enemy. Please be more civil and knock the chip off your shoulder. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are, but what am I? --NE2 21:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that you've broken WP:3RR and if I or another user feel up to it, its only a few clicks to stop this in a way that won't be ideal. Please self-revert yourself. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted thrice against your tag team. --NE2 21:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply saw reversions to Talk:USRD and checked it out. There's no tag team, just reverting tenacious editing. Reverting "thrice" would be what is implied by three revert rule. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page" - durr? --NE2 21:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I'm sure another user will revert the page within an hour or two anyways, and I could very well myself. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You edit warred to remove my subject line. Now fuck off my talk page. I'm tired of getting emails. --NE2 22:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SLC highways has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Just wanted to note that I'm about to be moving Lafayette, Allen County, Ohio back to Lafayette, Ohio. Municipalities are generally considered to be primary when there's one municipality and one-or-more unincorporated community/ies with the same name in a state. I can imagine exceptions being made for reasons such as community size (e.g. if the CDP Finneytown, Ohio were named "Miltonsburg", it would probably be primary, even though Miltonsburg, Ohio is incorporated, because they have 12,000 and 43 residents respectively), but Lafayette's the typical situation in which the municipality takes precedence. Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What allows you to override the disambiguation page and move it? These two places are of roughly equal importance. --NE2 21:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Long Beach Independent, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I should have reverted this back to the redirect that you originally created rather than nominate for speedy deletion. I apologise for template above! RichardOSmith (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from incorrect capitalization. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from incorrect capitalization redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from incorrect capitalisation. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from incorrect capitalisation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NE2, I reverted many of the changes you recently made to the junction list of LA 1. Here are some reasons:
1) You removed local names for several highways that I was able to confirm with official property maps, mostly in Lafourche Parish. The presence of street signs varies widely between parishes and cities in Louisiana. Just because GSV imagery doesn't show a sign doesn't mean the road has no name.
2) You added many locally maintained bridges that I feel do not belong in the RJL. Louisiana has a lot more bridges than most states and listing every single bridge along a 400+ mile route will lead to excessive clutter.
3) You added names for many bridges, most of which I have retained since official sources concur. Because of the nature of the southern portion of LA 1 intersecting so many bridges, I feel many of the lesser used names clutter the RJL, but I won't remove them until I look at what articles assessed as GA's in the USRD project tend to do in this case. However, if a bridge on LA 3185 only has a name like LA 3185 Bridge merely for internal identification purposes, I think it's unnecessary and redundant to include the name.
4) You removed altogether a junction that is closed temporarily for construction, which I have reinstated with a note explaining this. You removed another junction that appears on the official highway map that is not signed. DOTD doesn't sign some highways for one reason or another. Sometimes signs are missing and are not replaced for years. Some short connectors are signed not with its actual route number but as "TO LA xxx" (to whatever route it connects to). Again, just became GSV doesn't show it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
5) You added a ferry service that no longer exists as a destination, which I have removed.

I think that covers most of them. You made a large number of changes without providing any reason in the edit summary. Then you reverted my changes again without explanation while I provided one in my edit summary. Your edits must have taken some time to do, so surely you can take an extra 10 seconds and write something in the edit summary as a courtesy to other editors - a reason for the changes, what source this is coming from, etc. Please don't start an edit war. That being said, a few of your changes were helpful, including some control cities from signage that I missed, which I appreciate. Thanks. Britinvasion64 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Take care of your article if you want. --NE2 19:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bayou Lafourche, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LA 1. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New York City transit fares is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City transit fares until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mdann52 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thank you for the work you did on Interstate 190 (Massachusetts) and Massachusetts Turnpike. The reason for my reverts were because the mileage posts have not been posted yet (or officially completed), so we don't want to mark the current exit numbers as old yet, to avoid confusion. There should certainly be information about the new numbering initiative (it is important!), but I wouldn't replace the former information until the project is completed, since there's no rush as Wikipedia is not a news source! Thanks, Garchy (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If there were a way to change the column titles, I'd do it. But everything is rigidly set. Insert passive aggressive comment here. --NE2 17:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:( I've had the same conflicting feeling as well, especially since projects like this tend to drag on for months (if not a year or more), making it tough to peg when the 'rigid' transition should happen! Wouldn't be a bad idea to bring this up on the talk page of the template, actually! Garchy (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice you removed Interstate 75 as a major junction from the inbox of Florida State Road 80. Personally, I would think that a major interstate highway would be considered a major junction on any article. I don't see how SR 29 would be listed and I-75 would not. Sanibel sun (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to give a general idea of where the highway goes. All junctions are listed in the major intersections table. --NE2 18:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WP banner shell. Since you had some involvement with the Template:WP banner shell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Q37 (New York City bus), NE2!

Wikipedia editor JudeccaXIII just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

{{{3}}}

To reply, leave a comment on JudeccaXIII's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Turkish Genocide. Since you had some involvement with the Turkish Genocide redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sro23 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MBTA Subway is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBTA Subway until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anmccaff (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NE2,

I'm trying to recreate the Class 1 Railroad map with QGIS and the National Transportation Atlas database. May you please tell me, which software and which additional shapefiles you used for your maps? I can't get the Cartographic Boundary Shapefile working. Greetings, --Kopiersperre (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I remember. Sorry. --NE2 03:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 631st Maintenance Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ravenswing 21:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite BDE has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Avenue C Line (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railmap-3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railmap-5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railmap-row/Northeast Corridor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railmap-hide/Northeast Corridor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VA-55 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VA-55 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Virginia State Route 696 (Lee County). Since you had some involvement with the Virginia State Route 696 (Lee County) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Georgia State Route 158 (Murray County) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the actual names of the Washington to Atlanta Main Line, B-Line, SB Line and W Line?

The Washington to Atlanta Main Line is not just one rail line, it is made up of multiple rail lines extending from Washington D.C. to Atlanta. I'm sure the line was just one rail line at one time, but it is now made up of multiple rail lines. If the Washington to Atlanta Main Line was just one rail line, the name would show on employee timetables and track charts, but it doesn't.

Same with the B-Line, SB Line and W Line, I did not see those names on employee timetables and track charts either, but I will reread the timetables and track charts again just to be sure.Granthew (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they have other names. NS doesn't use subdivisions the way most companies do. --NE2 14:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well subdivisions is actually another term used for rail line. A railroad can either use "Line" or "Subdivision" or "District" to define a rail line. NS uses "District" and "Line" while UP, BNSF, CSX and CP use "Subdivision". The Sunbury Line in PA was called Sunbury Subdivision until NS purchased it and renamed it to Sunbury Line.Granthew (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that NS is inconsistent across divisions. In the 2008 Piedmont Division ETT, the B-Line is simply called "Washington District Manassas to Edinburg", a branch of the "Washington District Alexandria to Montview". In the absence of an official name, we use "B-Line", which is what the general public calls it (when they need a better name than 'that rail line over there'). --NE2 16:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more searching and the B-Line is a separate line from the Washington District. The B-Line does have its own timetable, but NS labels it as part of the Washington District which is false.Granthew (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say this is false? --NE2 05:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Washington District and the B-Line are both viewed as rail lines, but a name of a rail line is usually not applied to multiple rail lines. If the Washington District was viewed as a rail corridor which involves two or more rail lines, then the rail line name would also be applied to the B-Line. However the Washington District is viewed as a rail line and not a rail corridor so the B-Line should be viewed as not part of the Washington District. Some branch lines, some secondary lines, wyes, connecting tracks and industrial tracks don't have their own timetables and are grouped with other timetables of other rail lines.

A rail line can also have more than one timetable, so if a rail line has more than one timetable, than those timetables would be viewed as railroad segments. Most railroad segments were once rail lines, but has since become part of other rail lines. The Nicholson Cutoff which is still in existence was once a rail line, but it is now a railroad segment of the Sunbury Line rail line. Same with the Reading Company main line, the Reading Company main line which is still in existence is now a railroad segment of the Harrisburg Line rail line. Lebanon Valley Branch is still around, but it is a railroad segment as well, it is a railroad segment of the Harrisburg Line too.

With the term rail corridor, a rail corridor could have been one rail line at one time, but was separated into two or more rail lines with all of its trackage still in existence. The PRR Main Line was one rail line at one time but it is now a rail corridor called the Keystone Corridor because it was separated into two rail lines- Philadelphia to Harrisburg Main Line and Pittsburgh Line respectively, all trackage remains. NS owns Pittsburgh Line and Amtrak owns Philadelphia to Harrisburg Main Line.

I have established three levels of railroad trackage property- Rail Corridor, Rail Line, Railroad Segment. A Rail Corridor is made up of two or more rail lines, a Rail Line refers to one piece of trackage between point a and b that is viewed as one entity, and a Railroad Segment is a piece of a rail line. Some connecting tracks, industrial tracks and wyes are considered as rail lines while other connecting tracks, industrial tracks and wyes are not considered as rail lines and are considered extra trackage instead.Granthew (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that "Washington District" is the name of a line. It appears to instead be the name of a group of lines. --NE2 07:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am basing the layout of the Washington District on what Railfan Virginia says:

• http://www.railfanvirginia.com/NS%20Washington_North.htm Washington District North Part

• http://www.railfanvirginia.com/NS%20Washington_South.htm Washington District South Part

• http://www.railfanvirginia.com/NS%20B%20Line.htm B-Line

• http://www.railfanvirginia.com/NS%20B%20Line%20Extension.htm B-Line Extension, the B-Line Extension is its own separate rail line, not part of the B-LineGranthew (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your problem: you're using the organization of a fansite as a reliable source. --NE2 15:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose RailroadRadio.net is not a reliable source either?- http://www.railroadradio.net/content/view/175/208/ Granthew (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:reliable sources. --NE2 18:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source. Plus you created the B-Line article and you said it connects to the Washington DistrictGranthew (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. --NE2 03:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Michigan 27 map.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/intrans/proginfra/programs/Memoria2lFinal2009.pdf shows that the renumbering in New Mexico happened in 1987. I moved the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

From April 1988: "Under a project that cost approximately $300,000, the Highway Department is renumbering many state roads, tearing down old designations and putting up new signs, with new numbers, in their place."

I also have a scan of a Rand McNally atlas that says "New Mexico State Highway changes during early 1988".

Maybe plans were made in 1987, but the actual renumbering happened in 1988. --NE2 17:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted them about the missing post-1939 routes. I will be watching the site. I also found something saying, location for a NEW FM on the FM 1109 cancellation minute order. This was obviously intended to be FM 3539, but it was never created because it was created as an extension of FM 3380 (Created in 1993) instead (the old one from US 281 to Mexico became part of FM 509 in 1992).--Alexlatham96

See [[4]]Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC) SH 242: [[5]] (Hempstead to SH 38 in Sugarland; it says it ends at a connection with SH 38 in Sugarland) SH 260: [[6]] (Commerce to Talco to Naples) SH 237 was SH 128 for a month in 1935. This was probably to avoid confusion.[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Utah Central Railway#Utah Central Railroad/Railway. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you help me find a compromise here, perhaps by other names for the two existing articles? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line-loc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you knew if the names of the RR lines that run parallel to US 75 in NW Iowa [7]. One belongs to BNSF (previously GN) and the other UP. –Fredddie™ 22:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NE2, it'd be nice to get this mainpaged at some point. I note you buffed it man moons ago. We are more demanding of inline refs and there are a few unreffed spots here and there. Would you be happy to look this over and slot in a couple of refs etc. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you investigate these maps, please? Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Alexlatham96[reply]

Thanks for the tip; I didn't realize the 1950 census maps were up. I will take a look. --NE2 19:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is incomplete. Please complete it.Alexlatham96 (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The template must be edited so this page can be created.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Motor bus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motor bus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CrossHouses (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on County Road 344A (Gilchrist County, Florida) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect County Road 344A (Gilchrist County, Florida). Since you had some involvement with the County Road 344A (Gilchrist County, Florida) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Alberta Highway 3 (Crowsnest).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Virginia State Route 600 (Lee and Scott Counties) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia State Route 600 (Lee and Scott Counties) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Philroc (c) 13:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bidding war is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidding war until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NE2,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged West Virginia Route 78 for deletion. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation page.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

~ Araratic | talk 08:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
In order to justify inclusion the following in List of track gauges and Template:Track gauge could you compose articles? User:NE2/nonstandard gauge

• Norfolk and Ocean View Railroad and Hotel Company (3'6½") 3ft6.5in
• Pennsylvania Coal Company (4'3½") 4ft3.5in
• Girard College Passenger Railway 5ft4in
• Scioto and Hocking Valley Railroad 5ft4in
• Monroeville and Sandusky City Railroad 5ft4in
• User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#5'9" 5ft9in, Track gauge 5ft9in not in List of defined track gauges
  • Eaton and Hamilton Railroad (5'10" 5ft10in, in 1862 - typo for 4'10" 4 ft 10 in or 1,473 mm?)
• Monongahela Inclined Plane Company 5 ft (1,524 mm) (and 12ft for "vehicle plane", but Monongahela Freight Incline says 10 ft or 3,048 mm) (gone by 1889)
• Monongahela Freight Incline, gauge perhaps subject to correction
  Peter Horn User talk 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 16:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in User:NE2/nonstandard gauge#5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm)
Mount Washington Railroad The article itself gives a track gauge of 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm) Peter Horn User talk 16:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 17:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Track gauge of Eaton and Hamilton Railroad Peter Horn User talk 18:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Georgia State Route 77 Spur (Hartwell). Since you had some involvement with the Georgia State Route 77 Spur (Hartwell) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Interstate 366, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested maps of roads in Arizona requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested maps of roads in Vermont requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested maps of roads in Nebraska requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested maps of roads in Minnesota requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bergen Township, New Jersey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant with Bergen Township; there is nothing here that isn't already listed there.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Harrison Township, New Jersey (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant with Harrison Township (disambiguation); there is nothing here that isn't already listed there.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1868). Since you had some involvement with the Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1868) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested maps of roads in Massachusetts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested maps of roads in Washington (state) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The former section of SH 194 from Tahoka to Plainview has a different control section, so this was probably SH 280. Alexlatham96 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/arc/findingaids/TexasHighwayDepthistoricalrecords.doc, the road from Nacogdoches to Ratcliff, was indeed SH 266.Alexlatham96 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gum Corners, Kentucky requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect North Rim of the Grand Canyon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 30#South Rim until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Berlin, Frederick County, Maryland. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#Berlin, Frederick County, Maryland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 16:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Oakdale, Virginia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hog Farm _Talk 05:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railroads in the Chicago Switching District has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/LIRR left/City Atlantic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/LIRR left/City Main has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/LIRR right/Atlantic Far Rockaway has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/LIRR right/Main Hempstead has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/LIRR right/Montauk West Hempstead has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/LIRR right/Babylon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Predecessors of the Boston and Maine Corporation has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pioneer Railcorp has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Funandtrvl (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hickey Boulevard and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 9#Hickey Boulevard until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 21:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've recently been involved in a debate about cahighways.org over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#cahighways.org, and I pretty much got bullied out of the discussion by a group of regulars who participate there, but I just now noticed the connection you have to the website, and I was wondering what your thoughts are on the debate? Huggums537 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NE2

Thank you for creating Spokane Street Viaduct.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS J skip old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS Z skip old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 I invite you to please join the discussion at the nomination page.

Notice

The file File:Battle of kedah.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of several problems found about it.

I asked you to discuss it because I see that you have a concern about the factuality of the information presented on the page Chola Navy. Surijeal (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Camden Township, New Jersey and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Camden Township, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 20:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies operating former Boston and Maine Corporation lines has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday, but I want to go way back to this edit in 2014. I'm asking because I added an infobox today (per a talk page request), and the GNIS name for the place is "Saint Johns, Florida". When I tried to change the name, I noticed your redirect. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because GNIS unabbreviates Saint doesn't mean we should. I don't know if there's a specific policy, but what do local media use? NE2 17:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the county website but couldn't even find this place. GNIS listed the abbreviated version as a variant anyway, so not a problem. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cited reference about the name abbreviates it. And of course we abbreviate the county name. --NE2 20:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Alberta Yellowhead Highway.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Companies operating former North American railroad lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Oiled (road) and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § Oiled (road) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I found your WP piece about the Cement Tolenas & Tidewater Railroad Company. So, I put some of the info into a railway section on a new article: Cement, California. Do you have any other sources about that railway? Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 05:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of roads in Texas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect White Point Bridge has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § White Point Bridge until a consensus is reached. Randi Moth (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Template:Db-oops has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 7 § Template:Db-oops until a consensus is reached. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to do this, but won’t do a redirect. Can someone help me?

1. REDIRECTGeorgia State Route 365#Gainesville business route

Georgia State Route 365 Business Chris 886 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/subtopic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Street railways in Washington, D.C. indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attached KML/NE2/Saipan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Utah State Route 177 (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Utah State Routes deleted in 1969 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails LISTN, only primary sources cited. No other list like this exists for Utah, so it isn't part of a set

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Bx15 (New York City bus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20 § Bx15 (New York City bus until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect State Route 221 (Virginia 1923–1928) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § State Route 221 (Virginia 1923–1928) until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]