Jump to content

User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

asdf

i'll make those shield graphics now atanamir 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This type of censorship makes me sick

Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads project

If you ever need any help with Minnesota State Highways, let me know. I have a blank State Highway Shield and have created the page for Minnesota State Highway 16. I am just beginning with the Wikipedia, so I haven't gotten the code down yet.

Station Attendant 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats I knew I made a good choice! --Jaranda wat's sup 08:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat belated congrats! HGB 15:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Wikiproject standards"

So-called standards are never an excuse for idiocy. I will continue to improve the article as much as the 3RR allows. --SPUI (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Discuss it where? I prefer to be bold and just improve the articles, but if you start a discussion somewhere, I will contribute. I probably won't go into it with high expectations or an assumption of good faith, however, despite knowing that I probably should. --SPUI (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you mind starting the discussion and linking me to it? I guess my problem is that this seems so obvious to me; I don't know where to start. Maybe you can explain exactly why these things are useful, and not just because they're "Wikiproject standards". --SPUI (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ollie McGill

Hi, you deleted this fellow's stub article even though it says he plays with the Conglomerate, which has an album released by MGM. I undeleted. Harry James Angus, too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to add Oscar Bell...

but you beat me! It was funny! BCorr|Брайен 22:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, a historical reconstruction

I spent seven years developing this website.

It is:

- not a spam

- not a personnal page, but a study where I "abandoned" myself in favor of the evidence

- not commercial in any way, not trying to sell anything

- low-key concerning the author, therefore not self-promotional

- presented only as A reconstruction

- fully researched and utterly documented

- the size of a small book

- covering many related topics affecting our understanding of Jesus

- posted on about 20 websites, some Christian, others not

- strictly about Jesus, the one credited to start Christianity

- under "historical Jesus", on the top 10 on Yahoo! and Google for years

- without hate against anyone

- hotly recommended among some of my readers (see below), including a few scholars (from different sides).

- offering a different approach, between "historic" and fully fictional earthly Jesus

Here is the link of the front page: judge for yourself: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html

I also noted on the link list a posted website called the "Jesus puzzle", which is highly controversial, and against the existence of Jesus. It is strongly promotional towards the author, who uses it to sell his own book (I do not). Another link "Overview of the Life of Jesus' advertises book for sales (I do not) and carries Google ads (I do not). Another website selling stuff is "Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ" (I do not). Several sites promote a religious faith or atheism (I do not). So I am very perplexed about the criteria used for rejection or acceptance.

One posted website has "Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth". Go figure, this one is not deleted. Other posted religious sites are hardly about the historical Jesus, but use wikipedia to propagate their beliefs. Go figure, those are not deleted, but mine is. Maybe it is time to sort out what websites should remain posted on that page and not kick out automatically the last one to come. That seems to be the major criteria for some deleters.

On the positive side, I am glad that Andrantus, OwenX, Mr Adequate, KHM03, EI_C, Johann Wolfgang and possibly Izehar are favorable to it. Actually three of the aforementioned put the post back in.

Now here are excerpts from my readers (complete texts in "my best review" and "... readers' comments" pages)

"Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."

"I really appreciate your efforts to your homepage. It's great and informative."

"I am fascinated and impressed ... This is a fantastic effort."

"You have done a very thorough job researching your material."

"You are to be commended on your extensive study of these matters."

"I have just stumbled across your work, and have spent a few hours reading it. Most impressive!"

"I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."

"I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."

"Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."

"This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."

"Good Work. I have been reading your account of the life of Jesus, and I find it very insightful."

"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."

"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."

"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."

"Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"

"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."

"I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."

"... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."

"I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."

"... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality. I've been searching for some time for someone who could help fill in the gaps and mostly have found Jesus bashers full of the same sort of hate and prejudice I see in the world religions. These people are no better than those they criticize. Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."

"Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."

(Mullerb 05:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

From Mullerb

I got your last message. Apparently, the rule is to have another person to post your website. Somebody else already did try to post my site (twice) but was deleted regardless. That does not seem to work either. And I personally think it is a bad policy; this is why:

- Almost anybody can find someone else to do that. So what's the point?

- Religious organizations can find masses of faithfuls to do just that. So what's the point?

- Anyone can go to the library, an internet cafe, a friend's place, from work, and do that from another computer. So what's the point?

- Somebody with money to spare can hire somebody else to do that. So what's the point?

But when somebody, openly, under his own name, propose his valued and extensive website, oh no, you cannot do that. Instead, you have to sneak around and hope for the best.

By the way, I am not a celeb trying to draw publicity on me.

(Mullerb 06:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

California State Route 241

You recently contributed a message to my talk page, telling me how I had incorrectly used the NPOV template. I don't understand how you believe that the "Future Aspirations" section of the article is neutral. It obviously presents one side of the argument concerning whether to put in the toll road to San Clemente, avoiding the benefits and making assumptions(TCA has certain means that they believe will be able to prevent negative effects and possibly bring positive effects. Although this is possibly untrue, it is not mentioned at all.) The 241 Toll Road argument is a huge issue in South Orange County, especially in San Clemente, and displaying one side of the argument as true is not right.

(IP 68.5.128.55 18:29,18 December 2005 (UTC) )

California State Route 79

It uses Image:Interstate-80.png and neither me nor the robot can find an obvious way of removing it or switching it to Image:Interstate80.png. It is somehow part of the {{routeboxca2}}, so I figure that you know how to change it. Thanks. --Chris 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not easy to do? I just figured you guys had it set up in such a way that it wasn't obvious, but you can't just change it? (all you need to do is get rid of the dash between "Interstate" and "80") --Chris 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, you got it. You're an admin, right? If so, feel free to go ahead and delete Image:Interstate-80.png. I've already fixed the other 5 articles that used it. If you want, you can redirect it to Image:Interstate80.png when you're done deleting it. --Chris 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just did. You seem to have deleted the page, but not the image itself. So I put it back on WP:IFD. --Chris 13:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Macintosh

Thanks for joining! Our current focus is Apple Computer. Our former focus and current FAC is Apple Macintosh; you can vote here. Don't forget to put {{Project Macintosh}} and {{user WikiProject Macintosh}} on your userpage! We’re all honored that you want to join our WikiProject. --HereToHelp (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

SFD

I'd like to think it was possible, but I'm far too biased in this debate to make that judgement. It's reached the stage where SPUI's simply making more evidence against himself for a potential rfc (I suppose you saw that he deliberately edited out someone's comments during the debate?) Grutness...wha? 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

well, it looks like SPUI was the first person to use the word idiots, referring to people at W-talk:SFD, and he also seems to have accused BL Lacertae of being a dick on her talk page before she mentioned it on MFD. That and the editing of her comments which seem to be like fair comment, all things considered, well... Grutness...wha? 05:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
and now he's calling me a dick as well. Ah, well. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I've commented your personal attack out per WP:RPA. Also WP:NPA. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I've uncommented it, as it is not a personal attack. It is an attack on your actions, not yourself. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
See his talk page for my reply. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Being a dick is an action, much like clubbing baby seals or kissing babies. Please don't be one, as you have been in the MFD discussion. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
"Don't be a dick" is a well-accepted phrase. You are attempting to move the conversation from your assumption of bad faith to my classifying that as being a dick. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it is. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

user:Interstate96

I see you have reverted this user's edits a few times. The user did another edit to Interstate 96, using the article like a talk page to question the previous reversion, which I reverted, and I warned as well, suggesting that discussion ought to be on the talk page. The I96 page is on my watchlist too, but you've been catching the edits before I did. Thanks for your help! ++Lar 06:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to cooperate, but I'm just saying that bands should have the right to add themselevs to wikipedia, due to the fact that they exist. There are plenty of bands on Wikipedia, such as Coheed and Cambria. The page excesively promotes the bands, offering links, information, etc. I'm sorry about talking to you on the content page, I didn't know how to talk.


Oh ok, I'm sorry for the hastle. I didn't know of those guidelines. Sorry again, I'll make sure I read into things next time. Take care.

U.S. Routes

You stated that they are known as U.S. Highways - by who? AASHTO, the agency that assigns them, calls them Routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Route is typically in the south and northeast? How about Route 66? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 76 (east)

Greetings, User:Beirne asked the Mediation Cabal to mediate on the use of infoboxes on Talk:Interstate_76_(east). Now, Beirne has withdrawn from Wikipedia (see User talk:Beirne ), so I was wondering if you consider the dispute closed or open (it appears that you agreed with Beirne). I am partially trying to determine the status of the dispute, and I am partially curious if someone remains to carry forward the recommendations of the RfC. In other words, should I close the mediation or continue? Thanks, SteveMc 23:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

Is this how to talk to you? I have no idea. Thanks

Yup. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OK so what's the deal on links? They are relevant to the topic. Some specifically on each. And there are actual commercial links there (Armageddon Books for example). That was a non-profit web site that does link to other sites that sell stuff, which is pretty normal.

There is a specific criteria on external links- Wikipedia:External links. It is frowned upon to go to several articles and insert the same link. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure and I can understand that, so what about specific pages that address specific content? (general content was what was intended). For example, there is a page on that site specific to the Gog and Magog war (one of the interpretations). Would the correct thing to do be to link to that page specifically? (that was also the intent on the Rapture page which came with a page-specific link). Thanks.

I suppose... but I looked at the Rapture page and it's just a bunch of Bible verses that anyone can get off biblegateway.com. There is nothing unique in this article. Also, are you connected in any way with this web site? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering what is different since there are several links to a non-specific Rapture Ready URL on several pages as I have noted. Why is the site subjected to more rigorous criteria than the other links? I don't understand what's different? Oh yeah it is my site. But again what does Armageddon Books have specific since it is a purely commercial site. The links seem rather random, I've noted, on several pages.

You cannot add a link to your own site- another person ran into that on Talk:Jesus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Well, it's a small site but I have 40,000-50,000 unique people that come through each month. Somebody will probably do it someday, anyways. Have a nice weekend. 8)

U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject

Thank you for adding the {{U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject}} template to the Talk pages I-35E and I-35W articles I did yesterday/today. I thought I had everything else set up. I guess I got it for the article but forgot the Talk pages. Oops! Again, thank you! C.Fred 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

FLSR-stub

I believe it's already fixed - the old category is now blank. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy Interchanges category

As I've been working on the highways pages, I'm coming across a number of named (and noteworthy) interchanges, like the Springfield Interchange, Kennedy Interchange, and Bruckner Interchange for starters. I'm wondering if you know of more such interchanges. I'm thinking of introducing a category for "Noteworthy Interchanges", where they can all be gathered together. --WhosAsking 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 4

Please do not use rollback when not reverting vandalism. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

West Virginia

Hey Rschen7754! I nominated the West Virginia main article as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week...it's in dire need of help and if it is chosen as a US Collaboration of the Week, it'll definitely be up to par with other U.S. state articles. Since you expressed an interest in the state's highways and in the state's representation on Wikipedia in general, I would strongly urge you to vote for West Virginia to be the next US Collaboration of the Week. Thanks! --Caponer 17:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I-4 and I-76

I'd like to say the same to you. Please stop reverting them. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Missouri Route Boxes

I've created a new route box for the Missouri highways. It's at Template:MORoutebox. I modified the interstate template to create it and it's easier to use and will modify all the boxes on the various highways. I went ahead and created a seperate entry for the sign images because some of them are not title consistently and I was considering using the old outline forms of signs (if I can make them) for the decommissioned routes and that wouldn't require a new template for those. See what you think, I've already used it for Missouri State Highway 43, Missouri State Highway 13, Missouri State Highway 76, and Missouri State Highway 125.Rt66lt 03:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 76 (east) and Interstate 4

Hi, Rschen. I've been out with school for a little while. It doesn't seem like the routeboxint template issue has been resolved. Let me know how I can help. >: Roby Wayne Talk 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

State name shields

I did the two you mentioned, and they seem to be working fine now. Please put all future request on the shields talk page. Thank you. --Chris 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD notification

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 25#Template:Interstatedis TFD:Interstatedis and Intdis Tedernst | talk 20:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not-with-standing Ted, I've tried to be careful in the deletion process, keeping all information and using both old and new categories, so that no information is lost.
When removing the old news from the {Project U.S. Roads} template, it was reverted within the hour by the next edit. At this point, the template reference is the primary remaining reference, showing up in all the project pages. As the template maintainer, would you kindly remove the old reference?
Also, I'm thinking about a RfC about Ted, as this is not the only place he closed categories, redirected templates, and slashed articles without following consensus procedure first. I'll let you know when I've had some time. (I have a major motion for summary disposition next Wednesday, so won't really have much time until afterwards).
--William Allen Simpson 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the link, but the other project members need to know about the deletion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I suggest news about using the categories:
--William Allen Simpson 00:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OMG

omg... what did people do to the ROUTBOX!?! wHY DOES IT LOOK LIKE PAIN

AND THE SHIELDS... WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT SAVE IT!!!

atanamir 09:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization debate on "state highways" etc.

Rschen, I don't particularly care about init caps. I did read some of the debate yesterday you folks have been having, and it is one of those things that I can work with either way. Sorry, but I am more interested in getting all the info in there and arriving at a standard routebox. I saw that a few states had them but not NY sdo I worked on that. First I copied the US box, then realized it was different from the other states so I made NY like the other states altho I can't say I'm completely happy with it, but just like in progamming (my profession) any standard is better than none, and we can always tweak the standards as we go along. If we can build up the route info - I was going to focus on NY - then go back and tweak them according to an accepted standard after it (hopefully) gets settled, that would be my goal. I'll add my two cents in were needed. Where is the debate about routeboxes occuring if any? --Censorwolf 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

{{routeboxus}}

I don't see the problem - I changed {{routeboxint}} and it was fine - now I changed {{routeboxus}} the same way and everyone's complaining. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how useful junctions would be. Interstates are now the primary system, and so a lot of the U.S. Routes that would be listed in the junctions no longer exist. As for the California shields, why? There aren't any routes that are only in California, and even if there were, it's probably best to use the standard shield for uniformity. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

re: routebox

where was this discussion? I can't find anything on the on the wikiproject pages atanamir 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Did he not like my shield shape or something? I feel like the new ones are wayyy too long.

atanamir 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

CA/SR 17 titles again...

As SPUI is very honourably fighting for the article name, did we ever put an official proposed move vote up? If not, I think we should put one up. We have enough people to vote move to beat nohat I think, unless he can muster up enough of his friends to block it again.

atanamir 03:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nohat isn't the only one who thinks it should stay as is, I happen to agree with him. Common usage policy overrides all others when dealing with naming articles.Gateman1997 01:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
And if you're going to be engaging in conspiracy, you'd be best advised not to do it on a public wiki. Nohat 07:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Routebox changes

Do you know if there are people working on a new route box design? If so, I could coordinate my desired changes with them Joydawg 18:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Routeboxca2. Sorry, I just discovered the WikiProject talk page, I'll post there. Joydawg 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Maine

I didn't use the MDOT. Since the state refers to them as Route XX I added Maine State to distinguish them from other states. However we could move them to Maine Route XX if you'd like since obviously "Route XX" can't be used as it is too general.Gateman1997 01:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Breaking...

Just replied on the WPJ sub-page, before noticing your message. No worries; nothing drastic'll happen, take care of your studies, and I'm medium-certain wikipedia'll be here when you come back. (Unless agents of the Chinese government car-bomb Jimmy Wales, or some such.) Alai 07:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Stubs and project spam

The problem with including the phrase " support the Kentucky State Highway WikiProject" in stub templates is that you're implying that the WikiProject owns the pages in question. If you want to link to the WikiProject's page guidelines, fine, but don't simply link to the WikiProject. --Carnildo 08:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I-70 and 76 multiplex

I do have to ask that I-76 remain in the I-70 routebox as a multiplex or duplex, since it they do come together in Pennsylvania, as part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike for approximate 90 miles. I did not prefer the term "Shared routing with I-55", I prefer Duplexes or Multiplexes but that's fine if you want to be that defensive about it. I also know a lot about roads, and I live on the east coast and have travelled many of the roads I work on, including Interstate 70 and 76. But I do hope that we're cool. MPD01605 07:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I-75 junctions

You might want to update WP:IH to be more clear -- currently only I-80, I-90, I-40, I-10, and I-95 are included as part of the limiting to 2di junctions that end in 0 or 5. Seems rather arbitrary in any case. older ≠ wiser 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Milestones

Out of curiousity, how do you do the article counts? I haven't found a way to get a count of total edits, and I wondered if you did it with a lot of scripting, or some clever trick, or how. It's a neat bit of information! C.Fred 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye

Just wanted to let you know that I'm leaving. Please try to make the naming conventions happen. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

NJ road stub

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for clearing up those categories for my newly-created {{New-Jersey-road-stub}}! I was a little confused myself when setting all that up. Lensovet 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Maine State Routes cat

I suggest one of us renom it for transition to "Maine State Route System". The move was done in blatant violation of consensus.Gateman1997 08:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

US Route

I can understand why US 422 does not belong on the US Routes template; however, it is a unique case that the highway violates the AASHTO numbering. US 422 starts at King of Prussia, PA, ends in Hershey, PA, then starts again in Evansburg, PA (at least 150 miles apart) and ends in Cleveland, Ohio. I think this deserves the significance the other highways (101, 400, etc.) have.

--myselfalso 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The template should say that it is primary routes, though. Is there a template for spurred highways? --myselfalso 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:US-blank.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:US-blank.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Thank you for mentioning the {{test1}} and {{test2}} tags. I hadn't been using them on IP addresses, for fear of biting the newbies with respect to them being shared addresses, but now that I see that {{sharedwelcome}} exists, I'll do that more. —C.Fred (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Route bot?

I was working on the I-95 exit list, and I saw that suddenly there were many changes. This included links of "VA Route 895.svg" and even "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" to "Philadelphia, PennsylVirginia State Highway". Just a Heads Up that it does this and caused quite some work to fix it. Also, I prefer abbreviations- PA 450, VA 895, I-66, US 30- as opposed to the longer versions, because it keeps everything short and rid of unnecessary words. But that part's fine maybe I'm missing a guideline somewhere. Anyway, just a heads up. Also, I'd like to take this time to complain about SPUI, in Interstate 95 in Virginia, his facts are wrong regarding VA 895, which I've corrected and he's reverted, and also he had a tendency to do whatever he wants regardless of what's been decided, and what looks good to him (i.e. Exit table in I-95 in VA). This isn't my first run-in with him, the last was on the routeboxes and...that was a mess. Anyway, just my complaint. I don't mean to be a bother. But thanks for the Exit List help. --MPD01605 05:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Shield image formats

Should any new shield images created be in svg? I have noticed that most other highway systems have been converting to svg. Station Attendant 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


WP:MNSH

I just saw your message updated to my User Talk. I'm relatively new at updating pages on Wikipedia.

Did you see my updates for MN-371, is that how you got my name? I'm a big road geek who lives in Central Minnesota, and would be willing to help out on the Minnesota State Highways WikiProject if you can give me more details on what I can do (since I haven't done anything involving a WikiProject before). --SpaceJunkie 05:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you noticed my updates to MN-371 and MN-301. Thanks for fixing them up for me. If you, or anyone else, wants me to keep working on trying to update other Minnesota highways in my area, let me know on my talk page. Thanks!
--SpaceJunkie 02:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I added the banners back to the talk pages.
--SpaceJunkie 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I created a page for MN-115. I'm hoping that the "Background / Improvements" format is fine for right now. I changed the MN-371 page I worked on yesterday to reflect that format as well.
One questions I have about MN-115 though, is that, excluding its western terminus in Randall, it doesn't pass through any cities. However, as I mentioned in its article, it passes by the Camp Ripley Military Reservation (just west of MN-371). Therefore, should I just leave the "Cities" portion blank? Also, I used Camp Ripley as the eastern terminus, although it's not a city (but the significant landmark in the area). If it has to be a city, then it terminates 7 miles north of Little Falls). Let me know about these things. Thanks!
--SpaceJunkie 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say that this is fine. If there are no cities on the route, then just leave it blank or put "--" or something to signify that there are no cities. Camp Ripley works for the terminus, unless it terminates at a highway junction, then I would put that. --Station Attendant 01:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NY route stub

Added {{NewYork-State-Highway-stub}} to Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#February_14th for renaming --Censorwolf 16:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you should be User:CapitalEnforcer instead since this seems to be the most important thing to you here! In this case however {{New-York-State-route-stub}} you are correct, my bad. Some friendly advice (and I do intend this without malice), you should learn to use proper capitalization rules outside of WP however. --Censorwolf 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking this outside of Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BNewYork-State-Highway-stub.7D.7D for discussion, you state that the WP capitalization guidelines are "not technically correct". Please explain, with references. --Censorwolf 15:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but refering to http://dot.ca.gov is a fallacy of logic: an irrelevant appeal to authority. While CA's DOT is certainly an authority on roads in CA, they are not an authority on capitalization, so it does not matter what format they use. I looked at a few of their pages and their webmaster seems to insist on capitalizing every title, which is incorrect.
Re Talk:List_of_California_State_Routes, the argument positions presented by User:Squib and User:BlankVerse are indeed compelling; your counter arguments for the most part are again appeals to authority, appeals to popularity, appeals to local convention (e.g. it's been that way for a long time, that's the way we've always done it...), and insistence that only people who have contributed to road pages have any say or voting authority. All of these are fallacies of logic.
Only two authorities can be validly applied:
  1. A style manual such as the Chicago Manual of Style and
  2. The WP guidelines.
On WP, the WP guidelines hold more authority for this case because the guidelines have already been debated and decided on for this media. Just like the CA DOT site has already decided to capitalize all page titles, it wouldn't be a good idea for someone there to start changing the style for some pages; it is better that they all agree with each other. So here, on WP, if the guidelines are to capitalize lists and categories one way, then that is the way it should be done. Unfortunately, not all pages have followed the guidelines, but even if more don't follow them than do, this again would be appeal to popularity and an invalid argument for doing the same.
I asked for an explanation of why you stated the WP guidelines are "not technically correct", but you didn't provide any. --Censorwolf 14:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Appeals to authority are valid ONLY when the authority has expertise in the matter being referenced. For example, you would refer to the CA DOT for authority on highway systems in CA, but not on rules of grammar and likewise capitalization style. You would refer to CMOS for capitalization style but not on how highway systems are set up. It's a matter of domain. I have found one of the most educational things I did was to learn the fallacies of logic when I was about 19. WP's pages on them and some of the external refs there are very well done and worth your time. Valid references to authority are useful, invalid references to authority, on subjects outside their domain, are misleading and just plain wrong.
"New York State Route 17" is capitalized because it is a proper noun, NOT because it is "part of a specific system"; just like you should capitalize "The Eiffel Tower" not because it is part of a system of towers but because it the name of an object. If you want to refer to the collection of towers of France, whether they are part of a "system" or not, the correct reference would be "The towers of France" not "The Towers of France" (you would title a song using the latter method, but we are not writing songs).
Hence you have "List of state routes of New York" or "List of New York state routes" or "List of routes of New York State" (first letter always being capitalized for a title). I could go along with "List of New York State routes" since "New York State" could be considered the full place name, just like you could instead say "List of towers of the Republic of France" or "List of towers of the French Republic", but debate on whether to capitalize "state" is splitting hairs more than the rest of this discussion already is!
If you want the road system titles to use improper capitalization and you can get enough people to agree with you, then those who know better will just think "Oh well, I see those road geeks don't know enough about proper capitalization, grammar, spelling, etc. just like we thought". It will make this part of WP look "unprofessional" and/or done by "style-ignorant" editors, and since you are one of the main contributors of this section, it will be a reflection on you.
Since I see you are currently in school, why don't refer this matter to your language instructor and get his/her opinion? If you are really sure the WP style guidelines are incorrect, then you should take your arguments over to the dicussion page(s) there. That will remove any perceived bias in the argument from the "road crew". --Censorwolf 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

NY Routes project

Why I removed the US roads news: I just didn't think the US roads project news belongs on the NY project page. It is already on the US project page, no? Since the link as parent to WP:USRD is already on WP:NYSR, what purpose does it serve to repeat the box here? --Censorwolf 02:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enuf, if it everywhere else. Don't want NY to be left out. --Censorwolf 14:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the {{Template:routeboxny}}. I didn't have time to figure it out yesterday. --Censorwolf 16:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed from the Template:Project_U.S._Roads the comment about "*We have 2 stubs and 2 state hwy cats for this WP. We only need one." since it appears that is no longer the case. We still have everything else being named "New York State Route xxxx", but the stub and category are "Highway". We can revisit this issue once we have almost all the articles renamed and after the other more serious problems have been addressed. --Censorwolf 13:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I started building a table in "Category:New York State articles needing work" to show status of each route page. All NY route pages now comply to the current standard name "New York State Route N" --Censorwolf 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

County Routes

While I agree with you on the state routes staying where they are, I've been doing more research and thinking on the county routes and using the County Route XX (State) works better. I was always uncomfortable with cross county routes that were in more then one county being identified as one county's version with the others redirecting. It just makes more sense to make them independent of the counties they cross for the ones that are cross county. That and after further examination I can find no evidence that they're actually called anything but County Route XX. And I figured putting CA at the end was a good narrowing tool. However I could also deal with them at County Route XX. Your imput on which is better would be appreciated. I've also updated their routebox adding junctions.

However this has no bearing on my view of the state routes. I still firmly believe you and I are right and they belong at California State Route XX. Gateman1997 07:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was going to start with the routeboxes anyway and hopefully work w/ Joydawg to get svg shields up.Gateman1997 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Routeboxes

Sorry to bring up more trivial matters, but I see the Template:routeboxca2 and Template:routeboxny and possibly others are no longer including the junction legend. I resisted the ny change but do not want to get into an edit war with Chris. Is this a direction you agree with? I would like to see a standardize route box used across all the state projects, but that would be a long discussion and must wait until after the current hot topic has been solved obviously. --Censorwolf 20:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Left Behind

I couldn't help but notice you've been editing Left Behind pages. Were you a fan of the series?JohnnyBGood 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know man you smell kinda like a sock to me... oh wait, that's someone else. But on a serious note it most definitely is. Those books really are a great melding of style in my opinion, between spirituality and modernitity. Hard to find in most modern mainstream literature.JohnnyBGood 01:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi Rschen,

Would you be able to check out WP:AIV and block the two IPs that I mentioned? They both continue to vandalize the page Template:Topics related to Kerala. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 09:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Khoikhoi 09:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage. Looks like I just returned the favour by reverting yours, hehe. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 09:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet another thank you... You're on fire today. ;) (Although it's amazing how some people just won't quit...) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 09:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks March 18, 2006

Thanks for reverting my userpage vandalism so quickly. May the dark side never take power. BabuBhatt 09:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Montana Roads

Since no one is doing anything with the roads in Montana, I thought I might tackle them. Although some of the other states have a variety of inconsistency, I'll just stick to outlining the route and indicating the coordinates as well as the distance between towns and intersecting roads. See my efforts on the Alberta highways such as Alberta provincial highway 43. Cheers. Cadillac 05:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

to U.S. Route 101, the change also broke the abbreviated links (i.e. [[U.S. Highway 101|US 101]] became [[U.S. Route 101]] in the junction box.) See if you can fix that, thanks. --Geopgeop 11:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think about it, I just hit yes. I'll fix it whenever things settle down by using rollback on my bot. I can do that right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

I need some help starting a Virginia Highway WikiProject. I have most of it down, but I just need some help with templates and anything else I'd need to make, other than the project page itself. And if you're already not inundated enough with other projects, you're more than welcome to join this one. But I just need some start-up advice. Thanks buddy. --MPD01605 04:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Routeboxca2

Please look at California State Route 186. Can you please fix the width for previous/next without squishing the rest? --Geopgeop 07:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

About helping on the MA Wikiproject

Please do not add a template to all talk pages. I like being able to see if there's discussion on the talk page by the color of the link. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Question

Not sure, I just filled out the form (so far I've done so... four or so times and gotten responses back... twice?) and luckily this time around, someone got back to me. I haven't received answers on specs for Illinois Route X shields or something else that I don't remember at this time, though, so they're not perfect. For something as big as CalTrans, I might even recommend searching the roadgeek Yahoo! group, which I just joined. —Rob (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A request regarding U.S. Routes

Rschen, I appreciate all the hard work that you and your bot have put into the various Road System articles, but I do have a request that would probably require a little tweaking of the programming. If it's being used to "standardize" the format of the linkage with a US Highway (say, US Route 1 in a Florida State Roads article), will you kindly ensure that the resulting text is consistent in style with the rest of the article? In the case of US Route 1, all it would need is [[U.S. Route 1|US 1]] so it wouldn't "stick out like a sore thumb" alongside the State Road listings. Much appreciated if you can do it. B.Wind 20:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

CAFESAlt and CAScenicAlt

I just found out that the Alt versions of these templates were merged with the orig versions. I am changing them back, but in the process I'm finding out that a lot of the calls weren't right anyway, so I'll be working to straighten them out-- it'll probably take a while, but that's what you'll be seeing. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754/Archive_2&oldid=1190255596"