Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here, and decide to stay.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert your name and timestamp, use (~~~~) (four tildes), or, to insert just your name, type (~~~) (three tildes).
You asked me how to make a redirect on the U.S. Route 50 talk page, well sorry I'm a bit late with this but here's how it works:
You simply create an article as usual, and all you type for the article text is #REDIRECT [[Article Name]] where Article Name is the name of the article you are redirecting to.
Oh and another thing is if you want to change what a redirect is redirecting to, just type in the name of the redirect ("The Loneliest Road in America") and you'll see a link at the top of the redirected-to article, just click it and you'll be taken to the redirect page and will be able to edit it as usual. However, I've already gone ahead and taken care of that one. -Jeff(talk)04:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US 191
Thanks for correcting my image description. It was over a year ago since I was there (and took the photo) and could easily see how I got confused. This is what's great about Wikipedia - when somebody makes a mistake, an authority on the subject will be there to correct it rather quickly. --Marriedtofilm22:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Helper locomotive (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your insinuations on Gwen Gale's user talk page
Your comment over there could be considered a personal attack; if you 've got something to say the just say it. If you are accusing someone of using sockpuppets then I insist you make a report or apologize. Duke53 | Talk08:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Donner Pass
Ah, see that was confusing to me, as I thought it meant to see the I-80 article(s). "See below" would have been a better word choice. But I do see your dilemma. The USGS topo map shows Euer Saddle and Donner Pass. I-80 is the large black line near the top. I just saw this really neat thing on the History Channel (Modern Marvels: Mountain Roads) and they state I-80 as going through the actual pass, which is why I went to the article. To quote them "The creation of I-80 through the Donner Pass..." So they can be incorrect sometimes, but still a really good show though. Either way, putting ([[Donner Pass#Highways|See below]]) after the I-80 in the infobox will easily solve the problem, as it will also provide a link to the section. Also, expanding on the section with some of what you put on my talk page would be good, too. Sorry if it came off as having an attitude. I tend to get a little sarcastic, which I really need to stop doing. But I hope this helps. Cheers, --MPDT / C05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP. I'm much the same way. Besides you're nice, read the comment above yours =-). Sure I'll get to work on it. I also saw that history channel special. That show of their's "Modern Marvels" is goign to get me fired someday =-) Davemeistermoab14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss why you reverted my changes (as I discussed why I made them on the talk page). While I'm not perfect I still contend my changes were appropriate and a good start. Namely:
The article in its current state is excessive in links to cprr.org. Needs to rely less on a single source.
The article is not correct, by todays names Yuba pass is not traversed by a railroad (it is traversed by California Highway 49) and so the article is wrong without noting the change in name. The pass mentioned here is now called Emigrant Gap as I corrected in the article before you reverted it. In fact I was and still am debating if this paragraph needs to be removed and placed on the wikipedia page for Emigrant Gap.
While working on a minor clarification involving Yuba pass and Emigrant gap, I'm noting that the Central Pacific Railroad Museum's website is linked EXTENSIVELY and is the only source used. While I agree this is an excellent resource and good site. We don't want it to appear like wikipedia is just cloning someone else's work. I'm going to consolidate some links to this site and instead list them as a reference. Not meaning to offend. Please discuss any objections.Davemeistermoab18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links and references to, and materials and information derived from, the CPRR Museum site are used with permission as I am the original author and/or compiler of these materials and the photographer/creator of the digital images and 360º interactive QTVR panoramas of Donner Pass. Because of the vast scope of our site (more than 5,000 pages) I have included specific links to relevent pages and images which would otherwise be hard to find for the casual visitor. Centpacrr23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I can respect and agree with that, I've browsed the cprr.org site and agree there is a LOT of info. I also respect and am amazed at the work done both here and at cprr.org.
But still, links change, servers change. All it takes is only one change in management at the cprr.org site and every link on this page will be broken. Most other project I work on encourage any external link as a footnote with (last retrieved on XXXXXX) next to every external link. I would argue that that is the right thing to do. I would also argue that it should be noted that the cprr.org has given their permission for wikipedia to "borrow" content, and the source of that permission should be included as a footnote. It's been my experience that 10 years later, when somebody asks, these details are difficult to find.
I also still feel it was right to note that this is not the same Yuba pass as todays maps denote and this content is more appropriate at the Emigrant Gap page. I meant no harm by the changes. Cheers
Davemeistermoab23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent many hundreds hours over the past eight years since the online CPRR Museum was launched in February, 1999, researching and writing about the CPRR (including a 445-page book published in 2005) and have personally walked and photographed many sections of its Sierra grade between Newcastle and Donner Pass much of which was surveyed, located by, and then built under the personal supervsion of my great great grandfather, Lewis M. Clement, who was the CPRR's Chief Assistant Engineer and Superintendent of Track during the entire construction of the line (1862-69) and beyond until leaving the company 1881. The railroad related text in the Donner Pass entry is not borrowed from the Museum but was written by me for the entry here. I have written very much more extensively on this same subject in pages I have created for the Museum some of which are included in links within the text. The additional external links are to my extensive photographic gallery and interactive panoramas. As I am also personally involved in the operation of the Museum site, there is no chance that links to it would not be updated by me if in the Donner Pass entry if any of them were to change. The links to the site contained with the text are to pages containing relavent original source materials which I have collected, transcribed, annotated, and illustrated, and which by in large can be found nowhere else on the internet.
I have also removed your footnote about Emigrant Gap which is erroneous, The 1952 stranding of the "City of San Francisco" did indeed occur at Yuba Pass on Track #2 adjacent to Tunnel 35 (Track #1) at about MP 176.5. Emigrant Gap is located a little more than four miles further West along the Sierra grade. Thank you for your interest. Best. Centpacrr06:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligence. I'm both embarrassed and still pondering. I have stood, if not at this exact spot, close to it on a few occasions and have never seen it marked with a name. contrary to the [CA-49] Yuba Pass which is marked with much fanfare. I assumed the names changed with time, but that's not right either. According to your museum the engineers considered routing the rail over the [ca-49] Yuba Pass and called this the Yuba Pass alternative. So why did somebody name this spot on the railroad Yuba Pass when a pass just 30 miles north already had this name? Oh well. Anyways thanks for researching this and correcting me. It was not my intent to make the page inaccurate. Davemeistermoab15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This location on the CPRR was apparently called Yuba Pass by the railroad from the beginning as this is how it is referred to in the Report of the Chief Enigineer, S.S. Montague, of December, 1865, in which he quotes L.M. Clement, the Engineer-in-Charge of the Second Dvision (Colfax to Summit), at page 13: "From Owl Gap to the Summit, a distance of twenty-four and one-half miles, the work is of much less expensive character, and a good location has been made upon a grade of eighty-five feet per mile. From Owl Gap to Emigrant Gap, a distance of three miles, and thence for four miles along the northern slope of the divide to the Yuba Pass, the work will be light. From the Yuba Pass to Holt's Ravine, the cuttings, though generally light, are mostly in granite or gneiss, and for a short distance in the vicinity of Butte Cañon, in trap. For nearly three fourths of the distance between the Yuba Pass and Holt's Ravine, the work will consist of light side cutting and embankment, and between Holt's Ravine and the Summit, almost wholly of the latter."Centpacrr17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the page on cprr.org I was referring to is here: http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Galloway6.html "The fourth route crossed the canyons of the South and Middle forks of the Yuba River and continued up the North Fork of that river via Downieville and the Yuba Pass, and through Sierra Valley to the Truckee River." Which is the route of modern CA-49 and CA-89 between Aubern and Truckee. Davemeistermoab01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real source of the confusion is that there are actually two places in the Sierras which carry the name "Yuba Pass" -- one in Nevada County at MP176.5 on the CPRR Sierra grade located four miles East of Emigrant Gap and three miles West of Cisco, and another in Sierra County through which CA-49 now passes. Centpacrr05:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dave, thanks for stepping in. I will stop for NOW. The owners of this article are VERY militant. I will stop back in a week to revert because I'm sure they will add Friday back to the article. Per the talk page, at this point I'm really more curious than anything about WHY its so dam important to add that fact to the LEAD sentence of all places. Does it have some religious significance or something? Anyways, thanks for trying to be a voice of reason. Cheers! --Tom15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your editorial compromise by restructuring was much better than Gwen's version. But you said this: Basing from interviews he conducted, Carleton speculated that at least one of them was raped. Can you direct me to that aspect of his report? I cannot find it. --Blue Tie01:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was sloppy editing on my part. Carleton speculated one woman was raped, whose story was almost identical to the Rachael Dunlap story, but I connected the dots inappropriately. That could have been smoothed out, but it's pointless now. My point was to get the two contrasting sources together (verses now Brooks is a footnote) and in a section of items listed as unanswered/unknown/disputed. I didn't have the wording exact. That's OK though I think Gwen's new wording is an improvement. But I still would like to see a source claiming they did happen and one that it didn't happen be given equal weight as it truly is a disputed aspect. But I'm not going to loose sleep over it either. Davemeistermoab04:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you do know that there are other sources that say it was Hamblin's indian boy who killed those two girls? The whole paragraph is a mess and that is chiefly because it is based on Gibbs. --Blue Tie04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Wow. I had read that article, but missed that. But speaking of problems with sources, this newspaper is doing a one sentence summary of everything with no way to back any of it up, but interesting none the less. Thanks. Davemeistermoab04:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is already an accepted source for the article. I am surprised that this article does not pass muster with you but Gibbs does. --Blue Tie04:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re you comment about my edit's being constructive on Blue Tie's talk page: Aw shucks, thanks! BRMo, too (whom you left out! lol) - seems cool. I'm OK when I don't think I'm in Hyde Park (& I do try to somewhat clean up my occasional soapboxages - as see here). My segue to -
Why do you think robbery's not a factor? It's clear in early Sept 1857 the Indian agents understood their orders (following the granting of travelers' livestock to Indians in exchange for their alliance against the expected conflagration and territorial pronouncements claiming it impossible to protect travelers lacking a pass from Indain attacks) to be to facilitate the Paiutes' threatening and extorting cattle from the various trains. And more than one gave up their livestock through the luck of these kindly militiamen "protectors" being around to act as middlemen. For whatever their reason (the article says "to leave no witnesses") Haight et al ordered the Fancher's massacre, but it'd seem robbery would be a prime motivation. To say otherwise is a Patricia Hearst's defense having to do with someone beholden to as a controlling, charismatic figure or something - but, according to Blue Tie's Dragnet/Just-the-facts standard, wouldn't threatening people with violence and extorting from them their property as Hamblin did with the following train to the Fancher's (though months later some of this livestock was returned) be robbery? As definately would be the making good on such threats in the case of Lee/Higbee? and with the business of the poisoned beef, or whatever that story kept changing to (and which the article must reference) being really only after-the-fact, invented motivations for the supposed Indian rampages? --Justmeherenow03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both Denton and Carleton believe that envy the party's wealth was a factor. I am not going to say "No, way-Impossible" but I will say, I don't think so. My take on the world is that a surprising number of incidents where you would think class envy is a factor, turns out to not to be. When class envy does turn out to be a factor it is coupled with other factors usually more serious. Many a lower class has been devoted to obscenely wealthy royalty and celebrities, even obstinate jackasses. The breaking point in most revolutions has been for other reasons.Davemeistermoab20:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review
To review an article, all you have to do is edit the peer review page for the article and leave suggestions. Anyone can do it, you don't need to sign up anywhere. If you're not familiar with the process, you might want to look at WP:FAC, WP:GAC and WP:MOS for pointers on how articles should be improved. Once you've reviewed an article, don't forget to notify the editor who nominated it for peer review, and let them know how the article can be improved. WaltonOne16:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cisco Utah
ownership of cisco is verfied by the county records in Moab, so before you claim this to be dubious please check the records
Ownership of a town is indeed dubious. That would imply that the company owned of every parcel within the incorporated limits. As Cisco is not currently incorporated and has no defined limits, that makes the claim impossible to prove true. If there ever were any defined city limits, the County Assessors office would be a solid source that all of what was incorporated Cisco is now owned by a single corporation. It would be no problem for somebody in Moab to go to the Courthouse and provide parcel numbers with title search summaries. If anybody did indeed "own" Cisco it would most likely be the BLM. Regardless the claim should be sourced before included in wikipedia. Usually in this world (Wikipedia too) it is the duty of the person making the claim to provide the source, not the person doubting the claim.
There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.
Well, I was borrowing formatting from other pages, most thought it appropriate to bold National Scenic Byways. But I'll concede your point. U.S. 191 especially looks bad with so much bolded text. By all means.....
You are welcome, glad I could help. You deserve a lot of credit too for all your work to pull together the article. I added the piece about the Mirror Lake Highway after you added it to the Utah Scenic Byway category. The article is a great starting place for anyone to read about the many scenic roads of Utah. Glennfcowan04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, though the font needs to be Roadgeek 2005 Series D. You can download the font (as well as other Roadgeek fonts) from the link in the shield design page. Don't forget to convert the text to paths, since the font can't be embedded directly into the SVG, and Wikipedia renders the SVGs into PNGs on its servers anyway. Again, it's a start. --Geopgeop (T) 06:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right about font substitution, I just dual-booted to Ubuntu Gutsy using Inkscape, and though the font says Roadgeek 2005 Series D, it's really Bitstream Vera Sans. --Geopgeop (T) 07:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I don't know about Mac OS X, but in Ubuntu, I copied the Roadgeek 2005 fonts to /home/USERNAME/.fonts and reloaded Inkscape. It gave me the correct font. In Windows, it's in C:\WINDOWS\Fonts, of course. Let's see... Mac OS X, it should be in /Library/Fonts in versions 10.2.x and earlier, or simply double-click it and choose install in the Font Book in versions 10.3.x and higher. I got that info from http://kb.iu.edu/data/aklg.html. --Geopgeop (T) 07:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and categorizing the images: use a three-digit sortkey, so the images are sorted in numerical order:
Well, if you could help to expand the main article to some version on par with the writing style of Turley's Ensign piece but instead with a WIKIPEDIA slant (or lack thereof? lol) that would be great. If so, maybe the "Conpiracy and siege" installment could either be reworked as well or even deleted? - Since, though its mass of details have been winnnowed down some and the whole broken into pieces, it still make for slightly rough reading. But in the meantime it would be great if you (um, if not Bardwin, Gale (lol), Robbie and/or Ogden?...! :^) could at least fill in the main article with any essential information it is missing--and, should you feel so inclined, recast existing wordings here or there within this old draft I revived to confrom their nuances to approximate what a current "consensus" of editors might think would be needed? Justmeherenow16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SR 70
The Feather River itself is only in California; if you think there might be confusion, a general location might be more useful than just the state. --NE201:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, any photos would be great. If you don't mind, you could upload them all to Commons, where a link can be placed in the infobox to the category there; otherwise at least one more in the canyon, one to the west, and one to the east would probably be best. --NE200:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I added the Commons link to the article, and the tunnel one to the history section. Do you know which tunnel it is, or where Image:Ca70bridgeconstruction.JPG is? Do you have any from the north-south part or east of Quincy? Which one do you think would look best on the front page as part of did you know? (I think probably the tunnel.) --NE200:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looks like that tunnel (Arch Rock Tunnel) from comparing to topos. God, I wish I could go to California for a few weeks and explore some of these roads. --NE201:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1930s map
Hey, I saw your note on WT:USRD about having a 1930s US road atlas. Would it be possible to scan anything of Harrisburg, PA (specifically) and the rest of the state also? It would be great to have for WP:PASH. I'm doing specific research on routes in the Harrisburg area. Also, when you do get that chance, could you tell me what year the map is from? Thanks! --Son19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, at least you've got the map. A map from 1960 still has its uses...so if you wouldn't mind scanning the areas surrounding Harrisburg, Reading, Allentown, York and Lancaster, that would be awesome! Thanks for remembering to grab the map, even if it wasn't from the right year! --Son (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find is that it was apparently constructed by Inyo County and Los Angeles in the 1920s for a planned reservoir at Horseshoe Meadows[3], and it was still being planned as a trans-Sierra road in 1963[4]. I have no idea if the state ever took it over. --NE203:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your nomination of Interstate 70 in Utah for good article status, and have decided to review it. I've read up on the previous nomination which was handled, let's just say, rather inadequately by NE2. I'll do everything I can to make sure that doesn't happen again...and don't worry, I'll "dot all my i's" sfter I'm done.
You're welcome! Those are my two favorite photos that I have from I-70... but I have a TON more. If you like, I will post them in the commons, make a gallery out of them and then post a link here. Or we could make a gallery of pics for the I-70 page, or post a link to the gallery from the page, or... well you get the idea. Anything I can do to help!
What can we do to get I-70 in Utah upgraded to FA status? I finally figured out how to convert avi to ogg files and I posted a short video of a drive through the San Rafael Reef. I also have a short vid of crossing the border from Colorado into Utah but its really shaky and I'm not sure if it would be a very good addition. BTW, I agree with you, this is one of my favorite drives, and I've been literally everywhere. 70 through Utah is even better than 70 through Colorado. Thats right I said it! ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys!. I do plan to submit this article for GA review. But it's not ready yet. It needs more sources. I think my next project will be create Utah State Route 72 which I will have to do to get I-70 in Utah up to FA status.Davemeistermoab (talk)
If you haven't noticed, I created a stub for the Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway. The only problem I encountered was the only reliable and useful source of information was dinosaurdiamond.org. The site is lacking in comprehensive information about the DD and without other useful sources I'm not quite sure how to expand the article. A map might help, and if you can get the DD byway logo to go with it, that might help. I'm willing to write the article, I just need more info! BTW, I-70 Utah is looking good! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I expanded the page, but I couldn't get enough text to qualify it for a DYK nomination. I'm done with it for today. Since you're from this area you might be able to add something I missed. It probably needs a map and I guess I can figure out how to get one. But anyway, hope this helps with getting I-70 Utah to FA status (there are a lot of red links in the DD article, but hopefully that wont count against us?). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Your infobox was a good idea, and I changed it just to make it more clear which cities are in which state, instead of just ordering them in a clock-wise fashion. I also downloaded that GIS mapping software so I could try to make a map for the page.... but that thing was really complicated wihout reading the instructions. I did manage to get the roads and everything on the map but I couldn't figure out how to highlight each road and change their colors. But anyway... I think I'm done with the DD, theres not much else I can do for it (until I figure out how to make that map) and I have a ton of other trucking articles to work on. But if you ever need help with some other articles just let me know! I'll be glad to create some more start-class articles if you need them for your GA or FA reviews. Happy leap day!! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on this article as part of the good article review process. This is really appreciated. We may nominate other country water supply and sanitation overview articles in Latin America for good article status and we hope to be able to draw on your support when we get there.--Mschiffler (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SR-900 and SR-901
They are linked on the left side of [5] and in the former StateRouteHistory.pdf that no longer seems to exist as a standalone file. --NE201:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dave, thanks for the message. I'm contributing on NV highway articles in areas where I have some knowledge (mainly Reno and Las Vegas) whenever I have time. I'm glad there's others who are helping out as well (I especially like your additions to the history of I-80 in NV). On to your questions:
1) In my mind, a cut-and-cover tunnel is a structure where a path was excavated (ie through a hill or mountain), the tunnel structure built, and then earth is backfilled over the tunnel structure. I-80 in downtown Reno is set in a cut, but no earth covering it; all overcrossings are bridges. You can distinguish the Virginia & Center bridges from the Walgreen's structure (which I believe was built much later). The top of the "tunnel" under Walgreen's is no thicker than the deck of the other two bridges.
Yeah, the Walgreen's foundation structure has been there for some time, but I believe it is newer than the Center/Virginia/Sierra bridges over I-80 (although I have no actual proof of this). The Walgreen's itself I believe is closer to 6 years old; they started constructing the store sometime in 2001-2002 (I watched its construction during my freshman year of college at UNR). BTW: What is this inventory tag you're referring to? Ljthefro (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that NDOT put these bridge numbers on its structures, but I didn't know of any published listings. I'll have to check out that FHWA bridge listing some time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljthefro (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) Can you point me to an article with this precedent? I'd leave them alone for now, but it might be something to look at in the future. Part of the reason for all these NV SR stub articles is that someone clearly just cut-and-pasted from the route logs at www.rockymountainroads.com in order to have some semblance of content for most of these state routes. Ljthefro (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These combined articles appear to be seamless highways where the Interstate and State Route numbers are the same, and the state highway is likely to be absorbed to the Interstate in the future. This treatment is similar to the Las Vegas Beltway article, combining I-215 with Clark County 215 in Las Vegas. While this might be plausible for combining Nevada State Routes 650 & 651 into one article, combining completely separate and non-joined highways (like all the minor state routes in Carson City) into one article isn't quite the same idea. Ljthefro (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I appreciate what you're doing to help UTSH. The thumbnail sizes in the infoboxes is the same (20px) for 3-digit routes. This is because the 3-digit and 2-digit routes are the same size. I know I'm an anon, but I'm sure that they're the same size. Thanks :-) 71.35.237.195 (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a little misunderstanding, it seems, from a newbie who is from Australia. And yes, I did submit Trucking industry in the United States for reassessment and the few comments were in support of failure, although they thought it was a well-written article... just that it needed more citations. Which I have now fixed, and I re-nominated... I think it will pass this time.
On the other hand, Hours of service passed the Good Article assessment, and I'm thinking of nominating it for Featured Article. My problem is, when I look at the "requirements" for both, they look the same! I don't see what the difference is... maybe I missed something? Do you know the difference?
I've gotten burnt out on the trucking articles so lately I've been working on other things like Phosphenes and Statutory rape. I created another navbox Template:Sexual ethics for some pages I thought needed to be linked together.
But anyway... help? Yes, we all need help don't we? If you could read Trucking industry in the United States and let me know what you think, that is what I really need right now. Some people have said its too heavy on the stats and not enough substance. Any sort of feedback would be greatly appreciated before it gets torn apart during the GA review! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out Interstate 70 in Utah and it looks great. One thing I might suggest, is using this picture commons:Utah07.JPG instead of the current photo of the San Rafael Reef. Or you could even try the video version commons:Utah01.ogg if you think it will help with getting it to FA status, although someone might have issues with the stupid black bar I managed to get into the video. But I think they might be impressed with the variety a video would bring to this article. And I noticed the list of "major cities" it is impossible to tell which ones are bolded, even though I suspect they all were. Other than that, it looks great, good luck with your A-class review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErgoSum88 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Wow, Wikipedia has a lot of things going for it, yet I can see it takes a while to understand all these guidelines. Thank you for notifying me of my mistakes, I take no offense whatsoever from it. In fact, I would have been offended if no one told me of my mistakes because I knew that somewhere I had to be making one.
As for SR-68 and others:
For the junction list, can't we put "subst:" in front of the template name (so in this case {{subst:jcttop}}, or would it be {{subst:jctint}}?) so we can place the sources in the right place? I'm not sure about this or we could put the source below the box just to keep the template intact?
For the cities that the route is actually in, I do have a Rand McNally 2006 or 2007 road atlas with a map of Salt Lake County showing city boundaries, but as for other locales in Utah I'd have to get another source. Do you have one in mind?
The only reason I use Google Maps is to see exactly where the route goes because with Google Earth you can't really tell, but I suppose I could do this with a road atlas as well in urban areas. And you are right, Google Earth has a lot of mistakes when it comes to city boundaries and routes (which obviously haven't been updated in a while since SR-195 is still shown, which was deleted a year or two ago).
Whoo! So many things to learn, but thanks for all the help. You're trying to make the project better, I'm trying to make the project better, we're all working for a common cause. Regards, CountyLemonade (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good to know. Could you give me the link to that UDOT map?
Also, these are my last moments of internet access until around Monday, so I won't be able to modify SR-68 before the militant editors (I like the way you put that) panic when they see all the violations. So for now I guess it should be kept the way it is for now or you could go ahead and fix it. If you do try to keep the junction box intact though because besides the templating that I did, I got the more precise mileage count from the UDOT highway reference and some other minor things. I am going to southeastern Utah so if I can I will get pictures for the project. Thank you for all the help CountyLemonade (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: UT 128
No problem... reading other people's articles helps me out too. About construction costs - most of those I found in news articles posted online through my local library. For example, [8] references a prior event in the I-355 timeline. Anything prior to 1986 I would have to pay for or find other sources, though, so that could be a problem. I don't think construction costs should be needed for an A-Class article regardless - plug in what you can find, otherwise there's not much you can do without much more research! —Rob(talk)16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: GA article
There was a little misunderstanding, it seems, from a newbie who is from Australia. And yes, I did submit Trucking industry in the United States for reassessment and the few comments were in support of failure, although they thought it was a well-written article... just that it needed more citations. Which I have now fixed, and I re-nominated... I think it will pass this time.
On the other hand, Hours of service passed the Good Article assessment, and I'm thinking of nominating it for Featured Article. My problem is, when I look at the "requirements" for both, they look the same! I don't see what the difference is... maybe I missed something? Do you know the difference?
I've gotten burnt out on the trucking articles so lately I've been working on other things like Phosphenes and Statutory rape. I created another navbox Template:Sexual ethics for some pages I thought needed to be linked together.
But anyway... help? Yes, we all need help don't we? If you could read Trucking industry in the United States and let me know what you think, that is what I really need right now. Some people have said its too heavy on the stats and not enough substance. Any sort of feedback would be greatly appreciated before it gets torn apart during the GA review! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out Interstate 70 in Utah and it looks great. One thing I might suggest, is using this picture commons:Utah07.JPG instead of the current photo of the San Rafael Reef. Or you could even try the video version commons:Utah01.ogg if you think it will help with getting it to FA status, although someone might have issues with the stupid black bar I managed to get into the video. But I think they might be impressed with the variety a video would bring to this article. And I noticed the list of "major cities" it is impossible to tell which ones are bolded, even though I suspect they all were. Other than that, it looks great, good luck with your A-class review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErgoSum88 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't seem that long to me, lol, but I guess thats because I wrote it. There is probably a lot more stuff I could add into the "history" section, but I probably wont. I see what you mean about orphaned headings, and that makes sense. I guess since you only edited one little word that means I did a pretty good job! Although I'm sure other people will find something wrong with it. Thanks for your input. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Wow, Wikipedia has a lot of things going for it, yet I can see it takes a while to understand all these guidelines. Thank you for notifying me of my mistakes, I take no offense whatsoever from it. In fact, I would have been offended if no one told me of my mistakes because I knew that somewhere I had to be making one.
As for SR-68 and others:
For the junction list, can't we put "subst:" in front of the template name (so in this case {{subst:jcttop}}, or would it be {{subst:jctint}}?) so we can place the sources in the right place? I'm not sure about this or we could put the source below the box just to keep the template intact?
For the cities that the route is actually in, I do have a Rand McNally 2006 or 2007 road atlas with a map of Salt Lake County showing city boundaries, but as for other locales in Utah I'd have to get another source. Do you have one in mind?
The only reason I use Google Maps is to see exactly where the route goes because with Google Earth you can't really tell, but I suppose I could do this with a road atlas as well in urban areas. And you are right, Google Earth has a lot of mistakes when it comes to city boundaries and routes (which obviously haven't been updated in a while since SR-195 is still shown, which was deleted a year or two ago).
Whoo! So many things to learn, but thanks for all the help. You're trying to make the project better, I'm trying to make the project better, we're all working for a common cause. Regards, CountyLemonade (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good to know. Could you give me the link to that UDOT map?
Also, these are my last moments of internet access until around Monday, so I won't be able to modify SR-68 before the militant editors (I like the way you put that) panic when they see all the violations. So for now I guess it should be kept the way it is for now or you could go ahead and fix it. If you do try to keep the junction box intact though because besides the templating that I did, I got the more precise mileage count from the UDOT highway reference and some other minor things. I am going to southeastern Utah so if I can I will get pictures for the project. Thank you for all the help CountyLemonade (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for the link! Thanks for fixing SR-68 as well, I saw the A-class review for I-70 and wow, all that Wiki red tape, whether to use dashes in between SR and the number, you'd think things like those wouldn't matter but I suppose it does here.
Also, I was looking at the Salt Lake inset of the DOT map and I saw that the Legacy Parkway, which will be completed in the fall, has been designated as SR-67, so I'm planning to make an article about it but I'm not sure whether I have enough sources, the only one being that map. I checked the route history for SR-67 and as for its future fate, all it said was "it awaits reassignment." CountyLemonade (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I commend you, I can only imagine how hard it is making an FA or even GA article, considering the sources, the red tape, the MOS, blah blah blah blah blah. Have you succeeded in your FA article? 67.41.182.126 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I wasn't sure where or if I could use it in the article so I just put them there for future use. I just wish I had a better camera, mine is a horrible 2 megapixel that blurs easily. I hope you are talking about the SR-128 pictures :D CountyLemonade (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to put more than one picture up there? All I was planning on was replacing the SR-128 with the reassurance shield one, you think the other ones are relavent? CountyLemonade (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: UT 128
No problem... reading other people's articles helps me out too. About construction costs - most of those I found in news articles posted online through my local library. For example, [9] references a prior event in the I-355 timeline. Anything prior to 1986 I would have to pay for or find other sources, though, so that could be a problem. I don't think construction costs should be needed for an A-Class article regardless - plug in what you can find, otherwise there's not much you can do without much more research! —Rob(talk)16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I-15
To tell you the truth, I had no idea that I edited that page before my recent edit to it. Thanks for informing me of this now, or I would have looked foolish later =P CountyLemonade (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem, we all forget, though all I did was remove the ones that I created, not clean em up :P But I do appreciate it. Anyway right now my primary focus throughout these next couple of weeks is to make articles out of all those minor state routes and make that into a redirect to the main list. We haven't reached a consensus on what to do with the page afterwards, shall we just leave it as a redirect to List of state highways in Utah once all the minor articles are created? CountyLemonade (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha thanks! I've been so used to adding stub templates to all my pages that I just keep doing it even for start- and B-class articles. By the way, is it okay for me to assess my own articles? That's what I've been doing but I wasn't always 100% sure it was supposed to me assessing. Well, I'm off to increase my edit count, removing all those stub templates and whatnot :D CountyLemonade (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you will know easily when I've created articles for now, I'll be clearing List of minor state routes in Utah. How will I know when you create an article? In the meantime I'm off to contribute to the promotion discussion. Regards, CountyLemonade (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again
Dood, your userpage says you helped promote the article 3 to GA status. I think you did it wrong. Anyway, Rob is a machine isn't he? I watched him clear out the entire backlog of transportation articles in the last month or so. Maybe now we wont have to wait two months for our articles to be reviewed anymore... I get impatient. Anyway, thanks to Rob I have two good articles and I think I'm gonna shoot for FA status after a peer review. Wish me luck! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your hard work on I-70 in Utah and your success in improving it into a Featured Article, here is a photo of a big hunk of metal shaped like a star! Your mother would be proud. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to make the maps you see on Wikipedia articles. I tried for a few weeks to just load the GIS data into image software and gave up in frustration. Naturally the maps by the more skilled artists will look better than one created by a novice, and each map maker will have their own style, just like each article will. I can appreciate that you want to see consistency, but I honestly think it's not ever going to happen. I'm happy with the map as is, and am grateful for the people who took the time to make it.Dave (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Interstate 70 in Utah - well-sourced, covers many different aspects of the history and nature of the interstate - and a valuable contribution to the project. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents
Well look at you, setting precedents and whatnot. I feel sorry for you right now, lol. At least nobody gives a shit about my articles, they all just say "yeah looks good!" while yours is being nitpicked over one sentence! I'm sure you know this, but I think it is obvious that it should not be bolded. Good luck with that. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're being too hard on yourself. I thought Hours of Service was an interesting article. Now that this has passed FA, I'm hoping to help review more GA's (I've done a couple). I'm not so much upset that people are arguing over the lead, as the timing. I solicited feedback in a peer review, good article review, A class review, and FA review. Nobody cared. Then it passes FA and suddenly what is there is blasphemy and must be exorcised of its daemons. And yes, I agree the current lead is the better version =-) Dave (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems most people have never heard of the Hours of service and have no idea how to give constructive criticism about it. I was shocked to see that there was no article about it when I searched for it a few months ago, which was the basis for me becoming an editor. But thank you. I have been reviewing FACs myself, and I think I'm pretty good at it. I feel sorry for the articles that have relatively few comments, so I try to help out with those. I might start doing GACs too. I've been putting my two cents in on the debate over I-70 in Utah so hopefully we can reach a consensus soon. Dixi! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5/15 DYK
On 15 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Four Corners, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
