Talk:List of state routes in Maine/Archive 1

Stop making mass changes[edit]

Stop changing the list to a whole bunch of redirects. This is an extension of SPUI's mass move campaign across the United States. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI for more. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They will be moved to the correct names. Stop changing the list to your made-up names (which I note are also redirects). --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Although several admins have requested that you not do so? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are nothing special with respect to content. You are simply wrong. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're disrupting Wikipedia by mass moving pages. Hence the RFC. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're disrupting Wikipedia by reverting my moves. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have not been. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"(Maine) State Route nn" is correct per MDOT. Kirjtc2 20:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? I see some results for "state route" but a lot more for simply "route". State statutes give an even greater disparity - 10 vs. 763. I am open to the idea that "State Route" is correct, but it would be useful to have a tangible source. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1], the official MDOT traffic count document, uses SR nn exclusively, while the road reports at [2] use "State Route nn" and "Maine nn" interchangably. The convention used for pretty much every other state and province until you messed it up is (State) (Type) nn. Kirjtc2 20:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - I'm still not convinced - one document versus most of their information aimed at the public. News articles seem to use exclusively route too. [3] [4] --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maine511 isn't geared towards the public? Kirjtc2 20:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It uses Maine X, State Route X and Route X. News releases on the Maine DOT site use solely Route X.[5] [6] --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm certainly willing to accept "State Route X" as the name - I'm just not sure that it is actually the name. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But SPUI is using parentheses which we are currently discussing at WP:NC/NH. We're asking him to wait until we're done with that debate. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the proper disambiguation convention - we don't use footballer Jim Smith or spymaster John Jones for instance. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except here they are known as "Maine State Routes" not "State Routes." What state are "State Routes" in? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they sure are known as "Maine State Route X". Riiiiight. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to listen to the principle of consensus, then noone will get through to you. Hence I go to do other stuff. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the consensus of the Maine DOT? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shows that you do not understand the principle of consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything works off of consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I was content to sit this one out until I saw you enlist assistance in this "war". Bad form.. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is called keeping someone up to date as to the RFC that he started. WP:AGF. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the RFC. NOTHING. You're trying to tag team him, and your attitude is abundantly clear by your choice of the word "war". Stop being a dick. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI started the "war" here. Not me. So what does user conduct have to do here? Nada. Let's get back to the subject and stop doing emotional appeals. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, as far as I know you're the first person to call it a "war". You're right SPUI's RFC has nothing to do with the message you left to PHenry requesting assistance, so why did you bring up the RFC? To change the subject away from the uncomfortable fact that you're trying to tag team another editor rather than resolve the dispute yourself? And there's nothing "emotional" about this, it's all quite factual. Stop harassing SPUI, stop stalking him, and stop encouraging others to stalk him. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not stalking. If you look, I started WP:USRD (which this page falls under), WP:IH, WP:USH, WP:WASH, and have done extensive work with the other state highway WikiProjects. I am entitled to say whatever I want and express my opinion. If I was stalking SPUI I would oppose him on all AFDs, TFDs, etc. Which I have not (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 1 for one, and many others). I would also oppose him outside of the roads department. But I have not. And also SPUI does not own Wikipedia. I can edit and express my opinion whenever and wherever I want. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Well maybe not for his MFD of SFD, but many people did not like that). And what happened to WP:AGF? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you made your first remark here exactly five minutes after Rschen7754 left that comment on my talk page, long before even I saw it... and as far as I know, you don't get the big orange box when someone edits my talk page. If you're going after "stalkers" now, may I suggest you look in the mirror?

I couldn't possibly guess why you've decided to appoint yourself SPUI's personal cabin boy, but you need to give some consideration to simply being a productive editor rather than devoting yourself to mau-mauing anybody and everybody who crosses his path. --phh 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Continue your petty "war". I hope it blows up in your faces. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice civil comment to brighten my day. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well when you resort to calling good faith edits "a war", you kind of have to accept the fact that you lowered the bar for civility yourself. Couple this with your persistant wikilawyering and absolute ignorance of the core dispute and one can only believe you're effectively trolling the debate. Offer something to the discussion or go away, don't try to "wiki-war" here. (For those concerned, see my talk page where I've asked Rschen7754 repeatedly to discuss the core issue, to no avail). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about no. This is a wiki that anyone can edit. SPUI does not own the roads pages. And an edit war can involve good faith and bad faith edits. Read the policy dealing with it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I'm aware of what the dispute is about. It's nothing against SPUI. I've been editing highway pages for over thirteen months- you'd think I know all about these disputes? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then participate in the debate and stop wikilawyering, or go away. Your lack of participation in resolving the dispute (but still taking a side anyways without justifying it) is not helping things at all. Dispute resolution doesn't work when you won't discuss the issue. I've repeatedly tried to engage you on the core issue and you've repeatedly shrugged it off and persisted with your wikilawyer explanation for why you think it's okay that a few sysop on AN/I decided to make new policy all on their own. The latter won't solve the dispute, ever. Answering and addressing the former might get us somewhere, but we'll never know because you won't answer (and routinely ignore requests to answer). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... maybe because you keep pointing the conversation back to how upset you are that you got blocked? To try and sway the audience and blind them to the real issues here?

And if SPUI can somehow obtain consensus for his moves I won;t oppose. But he has none. In fact, the consensus is against him. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem so convinced your block was appropriate, how would it "sway the audience"? Regardless, that's no excuse for repeatedly ignoring requests to respond to the actual dispute. I tried at least four times to get you to respond to the core issue, and you ignored it. You can't place the blame on me for your own inaction. Regarding "consensus", again, where is the consensus "against him"? Don't mistake "no consensus" as a tacit approval of "your way". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WT:NC/NH, Illinois section. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it looks like he has consensus there to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look again please. There are more "Option 1"s than other options. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... what the hell does Illinois's standard have to do with Maine's? Illinois uses "Illinois Route X", while Maine does not prefix names with "Maine". --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIME OUT, EVERYBODY! This is all so childish. I have a question for both SPUI and Rschen: for whom are you writing, the readers of Wikipedia..... or yourselves? Until there is consensus as to format (and no, SPUI, one person does not constitute a consensus despite your actions otherwise), I'd recommend using SPUI's tabular format with "Maine State Highway XX". If you are writing only for yourself, that is not the purpose of writing a Wikipedia article. B.Wind 09:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to set that up, I'm all for it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2[edit]

This state's highway naming convention is up for debate above. Feel free to participate. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many expensive templates[edit]

This page is currently listed in Category:Pages_with_too_many_expensive_parser_function_calls, therefore some of the entries fail to render properly. I believe the problem is the heavy use of Template:Roadlink. Note that template is listed as deprecated. I think(?) it need to be rewritten to use template:Jct. Alsee (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: {{roadlink}} should be replaced by hand-coded wikilinks, not {{jct}}. In fact, roadlink is just jct with the marker graphics suppressed, so it's just as an expensive of a template to use as the other. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exceeds template operation limit[edit]

This article currently exceeds the template parser function limit, and as such may not render properly. This is probably because of the long, complex template structure in this article. Splitting the article or simplifying template structure could resolve this problem. Mamyles (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed – See "Expensive parser function count: 553/500" in the page source (permanent link). – Allen4names (contributions) 19:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]