The article is about the highway and its history, not about a podcast about the highway and the podcast's history. The "In popular culture" section is about appearances of and references to the highway in various media, but there is nothing to indicate that the podcast is notable or has itself any impact on popular culture. In addition, the only source you cited was the podcast's Web site; this appears to be an attempt to promote the podcast, and does not represent a published, independent and reliable source appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. General IzationTalk 02:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to U.S. Route 66. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jackfork (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jackfork I disagree with your assessment. I am not associated with this podcast. I see no other more relevant current media listed for the highway. This podcast includes interviews with important figures from the history of the highway and is in line with other listings. This is not intended to be promotional.Morton.rodney (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there is literally a "pop culture" reference to someone who uses the number for a cricket jersey. tell me where that belongs?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton.rodney (talk • contribs) 03:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the article used to cite this content states, "Current England Test captain Joe Root decided on No.66 for the back of his shirt – it was a play on the words to the famous and historic ‘Route 66’ highway which crossed the United States of America from east to west." Clearly, this is a (properly and independently sourced) example of the influence of Route 66 in popular culture, and it belongs in the article. General IzationTalk 03:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at U.S. Route 66. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. General IzationTalk 03:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to add this content after having been advised by other, experienced editors that it is inappropriate here, you will very likely be blocked from editing. Either discuss your proposed change on the article's Talk page, or leave it alone, please. General IzationTalk 03:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am new to posting to Wikipedia. My intent is not to offend or cause animosity. I think Anthony Arno is a Route 66 enthusiast who is as much a historian of the road as anyone on the page. I'm not sure how to properly include him so apologies if I broke protocol. I did not see my email messages indicating I was incorrect until after I had reposted my comments. I thought I just did not save them properly. The podcast is one of the few cultural artifacts covering current events related to the highway without an alternate agenda such as religion or road-tripping in general and, therefore I think it is relevant. I read the bullet point about the cricket player and feel this is far more culturally relevant so im not sure what im doing wrong. I appreciate your guidance. i am not affiliated with the podcast just a fan.Morton.rodney (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton.rodney (talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you think it is relevant and that you were not trying to be disruptive. However, for the reasons I explained above, it is not appropriate to include this content in the In popular culture section of the article. I considered myself whether it might make an appropriate external link rather than article content, and then saw that you added it there. However, another editor reverted that edit because it appeared to be promotional. You may wish to contact that editor to discuss their reversion. Please sign your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them.General IzationTalk 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at U.S. Route 66 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General IzationTalk 04:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The podcast link appears to be some sort of promotional, so it has been reverted. I would recommend using an appropriate link instead. Kaseng55 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaseng55 @Jackfork I am trying to understand what is meant by an appropriate link. I am not affiliated with the podcast and am not intending to promote it. It contains interviews and historical context from significant figures from within Route 66 culture Morton.rodney (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It means link that doesn’t contain stupid stuff, adult content (except in adult content articles) or advertising/promotional content. Kaseng55 (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating the warning above; do not add a link to the podcast again. OhNoitsJamieTalk 13:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to U.S. Route 66. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jackfork (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jackfork I disagree with your assessment. I am not associated with this podcast. I see no other more relevant current media listed for the highway. This podcast includes interviews with important figures from the history of the highway and is in line with other listings. This is not intended to be promotional.Morton.rodney (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at U.S. Route 66. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
