This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Llama, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BlindEagletalk~contribs21:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Espola Rd.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
Thank you for uploading File:Pvschool.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
File copyright problem with File:11-poway-empty-road.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:11-poway-empty-road.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on California-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join. Here are some suggested activities:
Add yourself to the participant category, either by adding a userbox, or by adding [[Category:WikiProject California participants|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your userpage.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on
my talk page.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Rschen775407:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
California County Route S1
Just a note, <references></references> are tags not templates. They are equivalent to <references/>. The net result of the two edits is to change the former to the latter, which is good. RichFarmbrough, 16:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC).
County routes are not important enough to have their own articles. Additionally, the articles that we have now are not well developed. As a result, to avoid losing the content to WP:AFD, we are merging them all. The zone A and E articles have also been merged. The only reason the S and G articles haven't been merged is because there's so many routes it will take extra time that we don't really have. You're welcome to perform the merge if desired.
Don't directly paste material off websites into articles. That's a violation of copyright, and it will be removed on sight by other editors, as I have. It's not enough to just credit the website as a source. You need to at least make an attempt to present the information in a different form than the exact language used. Also, the site you used is not a reliable source so it shouldn't be used in the first place. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. If you're going to create an article, please create the associated talkpage and put the {{ U.S. Roads WikiProject}} template there. This year, we do have a drive to cut the total number of stub articles in half. Your article creations, unless you're going to expand them further, work against that drive. For every article you've created lately, that's one more stub added to the count, and one more stub to expand. There are literally thousands of articles out there that need expansion. Please help contribute there. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I was going to expand and improve them, but I didn't have the time that day. I will expand and rephrase the words. Pzoxicuvybtnrm15:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Then a suggestion, not that what I'm about to say is much better, but there's a option. If you enclose anything in HTML comment tags, aka <!-- -->, then that content will be in the article, but it won't be visible to others unless they're in edit mode. That way at least you'd have your "notes", but a copyright violation wouldn't be visible to the public. We've had several of these roadgeek website creators in the past complain, and rightfully so, of flagrant abuses of copyright when they've found their information copied verbatim into Wikipedia articles. Please don't do it again, ok?
Another suggestion I have. Don't start a brand new article unless you fully intend to get it at least to start or C-class. That means two of the big three sections started and mostly complete (start) or all three sections (C). The "major intersections", "junction list" or "exit list" section is usually the easiest to create, even if you don't have mileposts right away. I find the second easiest section is often a toss-up between the route description or the history, depending on sources. The RD is often easier because you probably have at least one road atlas or folding road map plus one of the online mapping services. Don't use just one map, consult several. In Michigan, National Forest and State Forest areas aren't shown on the MDOT official maps, but they are in the Rand McNally Atlas. Of course the individual road and street names for highways are on Google or Yahoo maps. Finally, MDOT's Control Section Atlas maps have the township and city/village boundaries indicated which is useful for the exact locations of junctions. (The CS Atlas is a must source for the major intersections list in Michigan because it gives the distances between control section termini to the nearest 0.001 mile, and the township locations. Since all of Michigan land is incorporated at least on the township level, all junctions can be listed in some location.) For History sections, the various roadgeek websites are a great starting point, but since they're all self-published sources, they can't be used as the final reference for that section. I will start with http://www.michiganhighways.org as a basis for my research into the history of a highway in Michigan, but expand out from there. I cross-reference everything that Chris Bessert has written on his website to what the old MSHD/MDOT maps say. Sometimes I find errors in his site. Lately I've been finding a lot of good stuff on Google's News Archives. (Most of the history for the Interstate 275 (Michigan) came from news articles I found through the searches there.) Other newspapers may have their archives online directly. Since the maps or newspaper articles are my final word, I use them as the cited sources. Then I put a link to the Michigan Highways listing in the External links section. Get used to changing out your references earlier rather than later, because SPSs shouldn't be accepted at all in Good Articles, and they certainly won't be accepted in Featured Articles. ACR should force you to change them out if they did get accepted in a Good Article review, but honestly once you know how, make the correction earlier rather than later. (Plus, some of the webmasters for the roadgeek sites get angry if you use their sites as a source, but not if it's just a link at the bottom.)
The best thing I've found is to stick with a small group of states, or even just one state. That way you can learn where all the good sources online are for that state. I stick with Michigan, and I know where to go to get information that isn't posted online, complete with a contact at MDOT. He might not have the answer, but he knows who I need to e-mail to get the answer.
Well, I normally stick with California, but I felt adventurous that day. Thanks for the tips; they'll be useful for expanding some stubs I've seen. Pzoxicuvybtnrm00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Junction list section titles
Interchange list is not a standard title to be using. I've noticed you've used that on non-freeway articles, which is very wrong. The current project-accepted titles are:
Exit list: lists all exits along a freeway
Major intersections: lists all "major intersections", usually all the junctions with other state highways
Junction list: same as Major intersections, just an alternate term in some states
Add me as another person that you can ask with questions about highways. I don't necessarily agree the comment above that at you should be posting only start or C class articles - there's a place for smaller "stub" articles to get the ball rolling. I was part of the Wisconsin Roads WikiProject before it closed and I've uploaded many hundreds (perhaps over 1000?) photographs on highways around Wisconsin. For an article to be featured on DYK, it needs to have at least 2000 characters of text, not be plagiarism, and be in good shape with inline citations from reliable sources. Royalbroil22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The key to my comments was intent. Too many stub articles are created and then left. WP:USRD has a drive this year to halve the number of stubs from 5934 at the start of the year to 2967 at the end of the year. The project is currently at 5618 stubs. It's an ambitious goal, but attainable if new and older articles can be expanded past the stub stage, which as I outlined is easy. RD sections and junction lists are easy to create, making start-class articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Nominating and article at GAN with an unresolved cleanup tag is never a good idea. Without reading through, I noticed much of the article is not referenced, which is another major problem for GAN.
A tag has been placed on Interstate 25 Business (Walsenburg, Colorado) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. peterl (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Colorado State Highway 35
On March 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colorado State Highway 35, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
We're going to go ahead and try this again! The contest will begin April 1. It is a contest to encourage editors to improve teh quality of WP:USRD articles and participate in USRD. Precautions will be taken to make sure that people do not "game the system" and bring article quality down. Please sign up ASAP! Announcements regarding the contest will be made at WP:USRDCUP, Twitter, and/or IRC. --Rschen775406:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Q about merging I-70 Business (Grand Junction) with I-70 in Colorado
Howdy,
I would like to discuss the merger you did with I-70 Business (Grand Junction) with I-70 in Colorado. Per the Colorado Deperatment of Transportation's route log ([1], enter 70,0,500 in the 3 form blanks to display) there are 12 or so I-70 business loops and spurs in Colorado (The Grand junction one is identified as 070B and 070Z in the route log). However, most of these will probably never have articles and I doubt some are even signed. So.... If the Grand Junction loop is the only "notable" one, what you did is probably correct, to combine the articles. However if any of the others are notable enough for articles, it's probably best to keep them on a separate page. Thoughts? If the GJ business loop does stay on the Colorado article, at a minimum, the infobox should be removed and the cats moved to the redirect. Thoughts? Dave (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
If there is already 2nd article for an I-70 business loop in colorado. I would say to combine those into a single page (something like List of Interstate 70 Business Loops in Colorado or something, and link from the I-70 in Colorado article. However, if this is the only business loop with an article, I'd say lets leave your merge in tact, and just do a little cleanup for now. I have asked some others for their opinions also. Dave (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Off the top, CO 14 is not B standards and I will not accept promoting something like it. Two, you have self-published sources everywhere in the history. There are other problems in MOS policy and as a result I docked you about 2/3 what you would have gotten because I don't want articles promoted to classes they don't deserve.Mitch32(We the people in orderto form a more perfect union.)21:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a question
Do you know this Shadowace1134 that keeps making edits on your user page? It's strange that someone doesn't do anything but edit your page, or an article you've worked on recently. Imzadi1979→23:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of sock puppetry. Shadowace1134 is a way for me to edit my own user page without clogging my user contributions with my user page edits. My user page edits already account for about a tenth of my user edits, so I decided to make this account. Then one day, I was editing my user page and forgot to switch back, so there's the couple of edits on Interstate 25 in Colorado. Otherwise, I'm not going to use this account for anything else (like sock puppetry) and I thus believe this is a perfectly legitimate account and follows Wikipedia's policy. --PCB23:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I advise you to state this at User:Shadowace1134. Imzadi just happened to notice some suspicious activity. However, if anybody ever accuses you of anything, even if untrue, some administrator will investigate the issue and discover your undisclosed alternate accounts. That will most likely cause the investigating administrator to distrust you, and you will have a difficult time defending yourself. However, if your alternate accounts are disclosed, that will help your credibility in the future. Dave (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
On April 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colorado State Highway 257, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I closed your ACR nomination of Eisenhower Tunnel since you were not a major contributor to the article. Also, don't update the table in the middle of the week. You know that I will do it. I was waiting until after midnight tonight so that the bot would run its daily updates to the tables. The bot runs at midnight UTC (8pm EDT) and I gave it 4 hours to finish the tasks, and then some time for myself to make the manual updates. When you update only select sections of the table, it can distort the results. We have the live updating table at WP:USRD/A/L if you want immediate gratification. Imzadi1979→05:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Colorado State Highway 57 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ErinM 06:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
On April 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colorado State Highway 57, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for uploading File:CASR 127.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
I've reverted many of your recent redirects to Nevada State Route articles. While it is desirable to reduce the amount of stubs by merging or redirecting whenever possible, these weren't really well thought out due to the complex history and alignments of these routes. You also completely blanked the original page, eliminating categorization that should have been retained regardless of whether the page was being redirected.
Please be a little more judicious in the future and not just merge/redirect stub articles blindly. Even though USRD has set a major goal with its stub elimination drive, stubs shouldn't be eliminated haphazardly just for the sake of reducing the stub count. Thanks. -- LJ↗08:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I've expanded it, and want to know if it can. You can get co-credit if you fix all of the problems, since I will have left on vacation. Buggie111 (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
No, Colorado State Highway 64 should not go to GA yet. There a couple of problems. First, Reference 2 (Salek) is what Wikipedia calls a self-published source, which makes it uneligible for GA. I know I use the source for other articles, but going to GA with it won't work. You'll need a couple more references, preferably written by CDOT. Also, the page needs a junction list to go to at least C. Sorry, but there are just some things I can't fix myself. --PCB22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
