User talk:SPUI/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've decided to try limiting myself to one revert per day per article. We'll see how it turns out. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not applying this to actually incorrect information, like on Rickenbacker Causeway and State Roads in Florida. 3RR for that. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 01:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you bothered to leave them alone, they wouldn't be incorrect as often as you state. Of course, all you have to do is supply a reference supporting your contention from a source that doesn't contradict itself - something that FDOT does with some regularity in southern Florida. Needless to say, the FDOT map references that have been provided by my colleague get in the way of a good story, don't they? 147.70.242.39 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Stuff that may need checking
People that may be interested or useful in highway debates/"votes"

FUCK YOU WIKIPEDIA


That didn't take long. Jimbo's fucking up the article space now. He has jumped the shark something fierce.

Probation violations

I am blocking you for 24hours for disrupting DRV--Doc ask? 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are the one that was disrupting it, by removing an active discussion. Jimbo is fucking up the encyclopedia. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What part of this do you not understand?

  • 01:40, 22 February 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "Brian Peppers" (We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it)

You can write about Brian Peppers on any website that will let you, but the guy who runs this website won't let you. Why not? That's his business. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is too big to be run by one man. I question not his legal right to run it but his "moral" right. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is what I wrote in response to another guy who made a fuss about "Jimbocracy".
GFDL means that you can download the whole encyclopedia (see here), install the software (it's easy, I'm running a copy on my laptop) and just open the thing up. What you do with the site is up to you. Jimbo can't touch you as long as you comply with the license.
So if you wish, you're free to take your contributions, and mine, and those of everybody who has ever contributed to Wikipedia. But this particular website has its own rules, and its own management.
There is nothing to stop you taking the entire content and (if you can convince them) every single editor, and giving them a new site that Jimbo doesn't run. Jimbo would be left high and dry. So why not give it a go?
So, you have a legal and moral right to the encyclopedia. If Jimbo's site isn't the right one for you, take it and go with my blessing. --Tony Sidaway 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You know full well that it's not that easy. There is a collaborative nature to Wikipedia that would not exist, as no one would move to the new site. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think the reason no one would move to the new site is because most actually either agree with Jimbo or (the great majority) don't give a flying fuck about the issue? If some issue was really opposed by a significant amount of editors, it would be easy for a fork to get critical mass; that's a great sword of Damocles over Jimbo's head. --cesarb 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
No one gives a fuck until they get fucked. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. There was a 2:1 consensus to keep the new article, but Jimbo deleted it anyway, citing the older articles which were rightfully speedily deleted as garbage, and ignored the most recent consensus to keep the valid rewrite of the article which contained sources and was written in an open, encyclopedic tone? Silensor 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Do Me A Favor

SPUI, remind me to comment on this later on how fucked up Wikipedia's inner workings are right now. I'm taking a break. Karmafist 13:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Roadcruft?

Thanks for your comment on my talk page regarding the road numbering system in Hong Kong. I just wonder how did you come to think that I'm a roadcruft? Deryck C. 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

Sorry, SPUI, I know it's a bad time, but do you have a source for Image:Cartery.jpg? It's a fascinating picture and I'd like to preserve it. It's probably not public domain, but it wouldn't be hard to make a fair use rationale if we had the source. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it. "The Frances Loeb Library is unaware of any copyright in the images in this collection." They have no further information. I say if Harvard and the LOC can use it with a {{fairold}}-style license, so can we.
I may have also come across this image in a planning document for the Artery, which may have been at MIT's Rotch Library. Somehow I have a date of 1930, which would put it in "Report on a thoroughfare plan for Boston. Prepared by the City Planning Board. Robert Whitten, consultant." by the "Boston (Mass.). City Planning Board.", "HE356.5.B6.A35 1930". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect--I'm glad you found it. I've updated the image page and left the tag for now, though I'll snoop around a little more and see if there isn't precedent to declare it public domain. What makes me uncomfortable about the tag is that it's too high resolution for fair use, so by using it as it is, we're kind of assuming it's public domain anyway. Which I think is fine, really. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Chick Bowen 06:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that low resolution is not essential to a fair use claim. It is but one aspect, one point of argument. I'd suspect, with the date and the source, that no copyright renewal was ever performed and thus the document entered the public domain at some point since. However, proving a negative is tough, especially for images which may have been published in more than one place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I give a fuck

And the best way that you can actually change things is by toning it down a little. Are some people acting like total pricks? Yes. Are some of those people admins? Yes. Is there another option open to Jimbo in the short term? Probably not.

Right now the "middle managment" of wikipedia is running off the rails. Well, a few of them anyway. All the pointless bullshit over the last couple of months is just a symptom of a very few bad apples stirring things up. You know, like you.

Because we can't fix the plumbing while the house is on fire. So if you could please not get yourself blocked again in a day or two, stick around and try to just stay unblocked that would kick arse. If we could stop fighting over stupid stuff like userboxes and Brain Peepers, things which are so fucking trivial I want to poke out my eyes, we might be able to fix some other issues.

brenneman{T}{L} 05:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is Jimbo crossing the line into deleting articles "fucking trivial"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The action isn't trivial, but the article is. Really, out of the million articles we have, or even out of the thirteen good ones, this one means nothing. Just like any one particular user box doesn't mean anything. But when pushed by continuing stupidity all around, whose side do you expect Jimbo to come down on?
  • We've got a classic "freedom fighter" cycle going on here. A few people like things fucked up. Some of those people because it gives them an excuse to use sysop powers to bash heads, some of them because they get to throw userbox petrol bombs. As long as there keeps being an "enemy" than there will keep being a problem. Use the judo-Ghandi approach, man, and quit giving people targets.
brenneman{T}{L} 06:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is no more trivial than any other. Someone seeking information on a "notable" internet meme should be able to find it here. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting content is the house on fire. And Aaron, you're the fucking problem here man. Quit pretending you are any part of the solution. Grace Note 12:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Content isn't deleting itself, you know, someone has to push the button.
  • Grace, I'm well aware that you seem unable to look beyond my deletion of the Brian Peppers article. I'd encourage you to actually read what I said about why I did it, note that I made notices in all the appropiate places when I did so, and have continued to actually talk and listen ever since then. I've tried at every juncture to get people to actually talk (not vote!) about the issues.
  • I'd also encourage you to have a look at my non-admin actions since promoted, to note how many articles I've removed speedy tags from. I'd also like to think that there is a place for people who disagree but can do so reasonably. I've never made any bones about my personal feelings about this article or user boxes, but if you don't pay any attention to my unflagging defence of discussion and mutual respect, that's not my problem.
brenneman{T}{L} 12:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and everyone will get the chance to sink the boot into me in a couple of months anyway. I promised I'd open a self-RfC on my three month promotion anniversary and step down if I'd lost the public trust. - brenneman{T}{L} 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your block

I've lifted your block for now. Please read WP:AN/I#SPUI_blocked_for_probation_violation before proceeding. They'll just block you again if you annoy them any. Haukur 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:HHOF

I don't pretend to be an expert on hockey or anything even vaguely related to sports, but could you perhaps explain what's so inflammatory about this one? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a userbox. Doesn't T1 effectively apply to all userboxes? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:FUN or something --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In Any Case

Don't let the fuckers get you down. Only you can get you down, the fuckers just give you a push. I'm glad that you're back, Wikipedia would be alot worse off without all you add to it, in my opinion. Don't let some dipshits steal your contributions away from everybody else. Karmafist 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Forum to discuss Wikipedia

I don't know if you've been invited yet, so let me hereby invite you to the Wikipedia Review forum to discuss Wikipedia. It has just moved to its new site, at http://www.wikipedia review.com/ (fucking spam blacklist --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 02:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) and your voice would be welcome. I might not agree with the whole GNAA stance, or some of your actions, but you're a critic just the same, and I think that you could contribute. If you are already posting under an alias, then ignore this. :). User:Zordrac 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Snorlax --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Factual error on your userpage

"This user page has not been censored in any way." Don't think this is true anymore. Ashibaka tock 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

California State Highway 17

Please, let's not play this game again. You need to establish consensus on the talk page before moving this article. Nohat 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


California State Route 15

Your continued deletion of the infobox on California State Route 15 could be considered vandalism. Unless you can justify this activity, please cease. - Chadbryant 07:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Because California doesn't like you doing that doesn't mean the Interstates do, either. Please read WP:BRD before you go recklessly changing I-95 exit list, especially since the article survived AfD this week. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Routeboxca

You sure you nominated the right template? The only edit by you in the history is when you placed {{tfd}} on it. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see; the template you modified was a meta-template of the template you nominated. Bizarre. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your nomination of this sure seems spiteful to me since your RB is being readily rejected by the wikiproject...JohnnyBGood 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read, WP:CIV, and WP:Infobox. One applies to your behavior, the other does not agree with your reasoning against the infoboxes.JohnnyBGood 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, Countries, Elements, Chemical compounds, Greek gods, Languages, Digital Cameras, locomotives and many others are just as long if not longer. The only CA highway ones that are possibly too long are CA 1 and 99. And that can be fixed by limiting the list to major interchanges.JohnnyBGood 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not even going to respond to that last comment. If you're going to discourse in that crude and ill mannered way then your opinion is worth nothing to the project.JohnnyBGood 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny how WP:CIV deals with it directly. I suggest you read it.JohnnyBGood 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It also says that your point will likely be ignored by most users who come across it if you are vulgar or profane... And for the record, I'm not belittling you, it's a constuctive criticsm, one I believe has been brought to you many times before and obviously ignored to no benefit to you.JohnnyBGood 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe, Maybe not... but it'll be had to find out if no one is listening don't you think? JohnnyBGood 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted your edit since I don't think the template qualifies for speedy deletion for it's divisiveness. Thanks. - Bobet 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mystified by El Camino Real, East Bay branch

Do you understand this? I can't figure out what this East Bay branch is, or where it is supposed to go. (It seems to include sections of San Pablo Ave. through Oakland and Berkeley.) The California Highways site does nothing to clarify this (not to mention that they sound like idiots—"the El Camino Real", indeed!) How in the world is this considered part of the Sonoma-to-San Diego route? I can see why you're having difficulties editing this.

By the way, I must say I like your attitude, and share parts of it. This can be discussed later (or not). --ILike2BeAnonymous 04:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "red link" (language faux pas); doesn't that just beg for someone to come along and create Yet Another Spurious Article? Jus' wondering ... --ILike2BeAnonymous 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

AN/I comment on you

Rschen raises some valid points about reverting and civility, here. I don't think you're violating your probation, but surely it'd be better to avoid such disputes if at all possible, lest the arbcom start tacking on civility parole and reversion limitations for good measure. As regards disputes in the scope of WP:NC/NH, I'd imagine it would be preferable to wait for some consensus on these issues, first. Alai 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to see you (and all contributors) a bit more civil, I must say, "Oh, eat my penis" may be the funniest incivil comment I've ever seen. Ral315 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Hi! I just noticed one of my pics was nominated by you. Thanks! Only took me almost a year to notice! (and that was by a fluke also!). --Rebroad 21:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox SG rail

You kind of broke this turning it back into using a metatemplate. Formerly optional arguments are now required and show ugly in pages that didn't supply them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now fixed it: templates with defaults on the metatemplate need to have default arguments of nothing provided from the calling template. Otherwise, an undefined value is passed as a string of the template name with squigglies around it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I-95 exit list

All you pointed out was that it should be split, not that any exit lists already existed. If you had something to add to the conversation then, why didn't you? —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You said the article "should be split". Had you said that it had already been split across—I was going to quick-count them, but the mileage list is overlaying the TOC right now—x number of states, I would've changed my vote to split/redirect to the main article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the TOC and length table overlaps, that's happening in Firefox. —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I-95 - blank row at the bottom of the length table?

Is there a reason you restored the blank row to the bottom of the length table? It's unattractive. Was it meant to have the totals in it? —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Map redraw request

For Image:Putnam Division map.png. On the Yonkers (Getty Square) Branch, there should be a station named "Mosholu" between the junction at Van Cortlandt and Caryl. See for instance Joe Brennan. There should also be a line running a little ways west from Yorktown Heights to Mohansic Lake (lasted only six years; abandoned when proposed Mohansic State Hospital was cancelled). You can see what I believe are bits of the grading here if you look closely. Much appeciated. Choess 07:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I'm not seeing any bits of grading in the historic map. Typically, since they were done from surveys, not aerial photographs, features didn't show up accidentally. The only thing I can see that resembles an abandoned railbed is this little bit of road. Switch the Theme to Image and it seems to cross the lower tip of Crom Pond. RussNelson 05:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Railroad Map

Were you working on a New Jersey railroad map? The PNG seems to be missing in action. I'm considering doing the same thing for New York. See New York Railroad Routes or Railroads of New York State. First I need an enumeration of all of the railroads. How did you arrive at yours for New Jersey? RussNelson 05:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

VA 895

"Federal statute 23 USC 129(a)(1)(A) indicates that federal funds may not be used for an Interstate toll-road. Thus, toll-roads using no federal funds and freeways of any funding source are eligible for Interstate designation, but toll-roads that use federal funds are not. In this case, $9.28 million of the preliminary engineering (out of a total $324 million cost) was funded by the federal government, and the project ultimately opened as a toll road, disqualifying the road as a bearer of an Interstate shield."

Therefore, VDOT used federal funds for the project, no matter what it was for, they used it. You can read that and see that it's not I-895 because they used federal funds, and opened a toll road. --MPD01605 05:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

One of a kind

You are one of a kind! --Thorpe | talk 20:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Zen

Learn how to meditate man!--Jondel 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Zen garden at the Ryoan-ji

Route moves

Spui, can you please explain why you keep moving California State Routes? We've already established that doing so breaks the disambig and search.Gateman1997 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not clear on the technicals, but rschen would know. Also there is consensus and the WP to consider. Both of which are against these moves thus far but discussion is ongoing. Wait until the discussion has closed please before you do anything.Gateman1997 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

Are you ok with this California State Route 85?JohnnyBGood 22:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Metro Map

SPUI, you are so good at making maps for the transportation articles. [1] So, if you do get a minute, can you replace the Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png Moscow Metro map with a public domain version. The one that is on there now is a copy vio. Thank you so much for your other contributions and thank you in advance for this map. :) --michael180 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am just checking back to see if you are still interesting in helping Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Thanks --michael180 20:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California)

Ahem... I wonder if you might be able to find time to read WP:3RR? I've given you 12h [2], in case you're busy William M. Connolley 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A birthday present for you

  • 02:00, 9 March 2006, David Gerard (Talk) blocked Gateman1997 (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (sockpuppetry (JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997; email me with which is "real", the other is gone))
  • 02:00, 9 March 2006, David Gerard (Talk) blocked JohnnyBGood (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (sockpuppetry (JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997; email me with which is "real", the other is gone))

I mean, I don't know when your birthday is ... - David Gerard 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But at least you figured out that Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood have the same one. Well there's something. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Boston Trolley Maps

I was just wondering a few things about you old trolley route maps on Commons. First, how come you mark the Watertown and post-Heath Street E branch as "still active" in your 1940 vs Now map? Second, are the numbers you give actual route numbers from back in the day or are they just the numbers of the current bus replacements... If they were the original route numbers it would be interesting to know that 90%+ of those route numbers are still in use as the bus numbers.

State Route 15 (California)

You tagged this page for speedy deletion, with the reason "So California State Route 15 can be moved here, as the name is "State Route 15", not "California State Route 15". Gateman1997 edited this specifically to prevent such a move.". Unfortunately, CSD:G6 allowing for such deletions requires that the move be uncontroversial, and since someone disagrees, this doesn't qualify. You must list this request on WP:RM instead.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that you can move pages onto a redirect page. Stifle 17:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gateman1997 specifically edited and then reverted this page to prevent moving over it. In my view, that is very dickish. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that. However, I specifically can't speedy articles to facilitate a move unless it's non-controversial. You will need to take it to WP:RM. Stifle 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

City Names

I see from some of your recent edits to some road pages that you are putting in links and then redirects as "City Name (ST)". This is not according to accepted WP guidelines (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#North_America) which is "City Name, State Name". I know you are an advocate of the parenthesis disambiguation technique, and I agree with you basically, but this is NOT one of the uses for it. --Censorwolf 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see you are making redirects, but they are unecessary, since the only reason to create the re-directed articles is so you can link to them from another page. It would be better to link to the proper, aka real, page. Just follow the guidelines when you add your links and you won't need to create the redirected artcles. --Censorwolf 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to create a disambiguation page and a redirect when the city page already exists as a properly named page just like every other city page on WP. Are you now going to put a dismbiguation page for every city page that exists in WP, or are you just working on CA for now?
All of those pages you are creating as "City Name (ST)" should be deleted and the links to those pages from other articles (if any) should be replaced with the proper WP article name. What you are doing is meaningless and obviously a solo mission against WP guidelines. What's worse, you have apparently created most of these pages simply because you referenced them on Talk:Interstate 280 (California). In one case Palo Alto (CA), there is already a disambiguation page Palo Alto (disambiguation). Please refer to the guidelines above and unless you can justify a reason for an exception, stick to them. "there is nothing wrong with linking to redirects" is not valid reason for creating one. --Censorwolf 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This shit isn't worth a response. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

CA Highway Moves

I disagree with your nonconsensus moves of the entire CA Highway system. Within the next few hours I intend to take action to rectify this (not sure how yet).

But to your credit I do acknowledge your questioning of the sockpuppetry. It is good to know that at least someone is standing up for what is right. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then there was a lot of consensus. Here there is not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
sorry... I had just joined wiki when that happened so I wasnt really sure... okay well there was no consensus against your page moving then. There is now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rschen7754 on this one. This topic is still under debate so all these moves you are doing are in bad faith. You appear to have no respect for the voting process since you have not waited for the results and especially since it is titling away from being decided in your favor. These moves should all be reverted. If the consensus is to use the names you prefer then we will make the moves at that time. --Censorwolf 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Terminal Island Freeway

Why did you redirect Terminal Island Freeway to only State Route 103 (California)? I get sources that the freeway's southern portion is suppose to be signed as State Route 47 (California) as it heads toward the Vincent Thomas Bridge [3]. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your merge for the sole reason that the freeway consists of two routes. Using your same logic, Santa Ana Freeway would merge into Interstate 5 even though the freeway technically is signed as both the 5 and U.S. Highway 101. Ventura Freeway would merge into State Route 134 (California) even though it is signed as both the 134 and the 101. And Hollywood Freeway would only merge into State Route 170 (California). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I may have been picky, but here in California, the Southern California freeway names have historically been more popular and more well-known than their actual state routes. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

highway 85 rename

There was a very clear vote to leave this article titled as it was. Please don't unilaterally decide to ignore completed votes. I have put the page back to the agreed-upon name. Elf | Talk 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it was voted to not rename to "A" doesn't in any way mean that everyone thinks it is OK to rename to "B". Elf | Talk 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course you choose to revert the routebox against consensus too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New York

We've asked time and time again, stop making controversial page moves with no consensus! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Except at WP:NC/NH we have a (narrow) consensus. But still one. Until the matter is decided though please don't move the pages. Even if it is decided against your point of view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Eat my penis. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, a comment like that that could be taken the wrong way. Let's all be nice. -Will Beback 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What, are you a homophobe? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub template should go after categories

In this edit you moved the stub template before the categories. This should not be done, as the stub category is less important than the others. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How very odd. Further up may talk page you will see flamage because stubs went to the end, which is what has always happened if the "sort" option is on. I shall investigate further. Rich Farmbrough 18:42 11 March 2006 (UTC).
I've found the reason, the template was "California State Highway Stub" instead of "California-State-Highway-stub" I'm fixing about 100 pages, and moving the sutbs to the end. In at leat one case [4] it has been in the wrong position since day 1. Rich Farmbrough 12:39 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Comment from Mike Dillon

Placement of the visible content of the stub template is more important than the ordering of the categories, so I disagree. If I see changes moving stub templates below categories, I will move the stub templates to the bottom of the article content. Thanks for the note, but I won't be following your preference. Mike Dillon 04:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Urls

Ooops, I try to avoid that sort of thing, and succeed 99.9% of the time. Thanks for teling me though. Rich Farmbrough 19:15 11 March 2006 (UTC).
I thought you meant part of the URL. These refs, are very tricky, because they are scattered around the article, but they to look and work much better than the old style. Is this version acceptable? If not, revert if you wish.. Rich Farmbrough 19:27 11 March 2006 (UTC).

I-95 Exit List (2)

Talk:I-95 exit list

Med Cabal

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

Do not remove other user's votes on the matter. It is considered vandalism and is against policy.JohnnyBGood 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AN/I. Do not modify my vote again.JohnnyBGood 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles River

Thanks for #Crossings. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

State pages

Please don't create separate state pages for each Interstate per WP:IH. If you got consensus I wouldn't care so much. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 16 in Georgia? Interstate 78 in New York? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem? Those links get redirected to Interstate 16 and Interstate 78 respectively. Seem to work fine. --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't care about redirects, but I don't want someone to create the worthless articles described above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Worthless content on Interstates?

Could we possibly put it up for other wikipedians to debate instead of just deleting? Or would you prefer it be moved onto the I-64 page? (Personally, I think the Long Distance signage is rather pointless as well, but nonetheless think it should remain).

Any opinion?

--Mkamensek 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK...I have an option. Create an article called Interstate System Oddities and move all the content there?

--Mkamensek 00:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI/Archive1&oldid=1143730928"