Misplaced Pages

User talk:SPUI: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:44, 31 March 2006 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits Edit summaries← Previous edit Revision as of 08:56, 31 March 2006 edit undoMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →Edit summaries: incorrect, I don't have to tolerate itNext edit →
Line 564: Line 564:


I can think of no reason whatsoever that an edit summary of "what the fuck" is in any way necessary when doing an edit to an article. It would be a lot better if you would use edit summaries that are a little less offensive, thanks.--] 08:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I can think of no reason whatsoever that an edit summary of "what the fuck" is in any way necessary when doing an edit to an article. It would be a lot better if you would use edit summaries that are a little less offensive, thanks.--] 08:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be a lot better if you grow up and do so quickly. I started that stub and it is on my watch list and I certainly agree with the edit itself but see no reason for that edit summary. I consider it disruption, I am an administrator and if it continues, I will block you from editing for 24 hours.--] 08:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:56, 31 March 2006

Template:Project U.S. Roads User:SPUI/CASR

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)
Revert scheduling
Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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 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 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages

I don't know if you've been invited yet, so let me hereby invite you to the Misplaced Pages Review forum to discuss Misplaced Pages. It has just moved to its new site, at http://www.wikipediareview.com/ 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)
  • 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)

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. 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)

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 , 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 Misplaced Pages: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 . 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 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

Misplaced Pages: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)

New CA Interstate Shields

Is it possible to have these shields use Series D for the INTERSTATE text. Most signs in California use this instead of Series C. I know this is a minor point, but just to keep the shield looking as close to the real things as possible. Joydawg 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, fuck it. I just looked at the CA spec and they use both Series C and Series D for different sizes, even though probably 90% of the real shields use D, so I see no point in sweating the spacing (there's great variation in spacing on the real shields). The numbering looks fine and the colors match the MUTCD ones, which are both more important. Are you making each one by hand? Joydawg 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ocean Hiway

When you have a chance, will you please take a look at this one? I started it, but I feel that it needs some attention. Your magic may be just what it needs. Thanks! Mark Vaoverland 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Image problems

Hey, if you could help me figure out the correct license for that image, that would be amazing. The message from the copyright holder is on the talk page. Let me know if there's anything else I should do. Thanks --MPD01605 13:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Congratulations!!! I hereby award a spinning Barnstar to User:SPUI for his dedication in editing articles related to California State Highways. Keep up the good work, and don't let the crits from others let you down. --LBMixPro 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

Thanks for experimenting with the page Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads on Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Offer to compromise: These are the pages (at their names specified by the WikiProjects) that have been moved to some variant of "State Route x (California)" without consensus. (Although I really shouldn't have to here, it's vandalism). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages

Can we agree to not move any more CA pages until the mediation case goes through? Otherwise I'll have to protect or go to WP:RPP since now it's just making a mess. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Until we come to an agreement through mediation, that is. I mean, why can't we just have a truce until an agreement? Otherwise we make a mess of things (redirects, wrong links, histories, etc) and get ourselves blocked by admins. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
So you;re not willing to truce then? It would be a lot easier on all of us- we could actually get back to content. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

MUTCD-compliant speed limit sign SVG

Can you make a MUTCD-compliant speed limit sign for Speed limits in the United States? The current sign could use improvement. Thanks! Nova SS 03:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:CASH

Please stop adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The joke is getting old. Humor's great, but Misplaced Pages is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions, or move on to something like Uncyclopedia.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your mom's getting old. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both people here in the Misplaced Pages community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as vandalism and you could get blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for it. You might not get another warning before having a block imposed, so be careful and be serious from now on.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all good with the WP:CASH shortcut, but the whole thing about profit could be misleading for some people. After discussing this with CVU, it's best if you just hold off on the "profit" joke, at least on the project page. --LBMixPro 07:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

US State Highways

Because that article was appropriate for that template. It was a list, and therefore, should incorporate the link to the other state lists. J.Steinbock 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you in that sense. However, it is a system which should include interstates and highways. Because you are the editor of the article, you may delete the template. : ). J.Steinbock 06:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

March 19

I don't know what's gotten into you, but the behavior is unacceptable, so --

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Misplaced Pages. The block is for a period of 1 week. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

Uh... blocked for what? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks. I think your responses to Rschen7754's messages were thoroughly unacceptable, and in addition, your edits that added "profit" to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject California State Highways can't be construed as anything but vandalism. If you have good explanations for your behavior, please go ahead and give them. --Nlu (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
What you call vandalism I call having fun. What you call a personal attack I call a your mom joke. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not amused. The request to unblock is denied. --Nlu (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, you're not the only admin here. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, if other admins want to review what I did here, that's fine. In fact, I already asked for that myself (on WP:AN/I). Meanwhile, the unblock request is (again) denied, and your talk page is going to be protected in a second. --Nlu (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not amused either, this request for unblock is denied -- Tawker 08:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
No is No, continued placement of unblock on this page will result in the page being protected -- Tawker 08:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Now now, I've reviewed your edits and this block is warranted, please wait it out, Misplaced Pages is not a place for jokes and you have engaged in this sort of behaviour before. Please stop -- Tawker 08:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Came across this a little late. If you get blocked in the future for a joke that doesn't break 3RR, feel free to send me an e-mail and I'll review whether the block was a good idea. Ashibaka tock 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You're unblocked

Your block was harsher than what was needed here, IMO, so I have unblocked you. Now, please, please don't make me look like a fool by immediately slapping more jokes on the road portal. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I had already stopped a while before I was blocked; I have no intent to restore the "profit".
03:39, 19 March 2006 Brian0918 blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (the 2 things he did don't warrant a 1 week block)
03:39, 19 March 2006 Brian0918 unblocked SPUI (contribs) (blocking for less)
02:32, 19 March 2006 Nlu blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Hopefully I'm not getting into a wheel war here -- but behavior today is unacceptable, and 1 week seems to be a good block length)
I'm not seeing your unblock - did you misspell it? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your block was shortened

Please stop placing ubblock notices as they are disruptive -- Tawker 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

SVG subway bullets

I've created a set of SVG subway bullets. I only uploaded 1 so far. Please check out my fair use rationale and let me know what you think. Also note that rather than going by the colors on the current GIFs, I'm eyeballing them. (Those colors are just bad conversions of the CMYK colors, so they're desaturated and don't look like they appear on the signage.) If you think this is a good idea, I can send/upload all the images to get feedback. – flamurai (t) 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, are there any historical bullets (in the same style)I should make? e.g. 9, K, and retired diamond services? I don't know the subway history that well. – flamurai (t) 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Let me know what you think. I'm especially happy with how they look at small sizes e.g. Rutgers Street Tunnel – flamurai (t) 10:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Interstate blank.svg

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Interstate blank.svg for speedy deletion with the reason "just the empty page here, not the image on commons". However, "just the empty page here, not the image on commons" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 13:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This message also applies to Image:Interstate 75.svg, Image:Interstate15 Ivanpah Valley.jpg, and Image:Interstate15 Ivanpah Valley.jpg. Stifle 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'll just remove the category and leave a blank page, as images shouldn't be in categories like that, whether or not they're on commons. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Stifle 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Can't they now be deleted because they're blank? Common sense would seem to say that having no page is better than having a page - deletion policy doesn't seem to deal with the case of a description page for a commons image. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it doesn't. However, what it does mean is that if you type in Image:Interstate blank.svg into the search box, the image and its description page come up. Try that with Image:Star Trek TNG S1 WO5.png (which is only on Commons), and you get an error. For the moment I'm inclined to keep the blank pages, if only for that reason. Stifle 14:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Please don't make major changes to 300 pages without consensus, thanks.JohnnyBGood 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, as you know, your proposed forced road naming convention failed to reach consensus by any reasonable metric. Therefore the only consensus that applies to California State Highways is the one at WP:CASH. Please discuss your proposed mass name change there. Gentgeen 19:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
SPUI time to give up. You have 6 people telling you you're wrong now... STOP violating consensus.JohnnyBGood 19:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Or thirded I suppose. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Fourthed. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

CA Shields

Nice job. They look very good. Joydawg 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, do you think it's possible you can manually center California 4, so that the vertical bar in the 4 is centered? Joydawg 20:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, then perhaps just nudging it slightly to the left? I see it under the O in the picture, so that the empty space on both sides is a little more even. Joydawg 20:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation for 1st roundabout in the US.

You had placed a note on an entry of mine in Roundabout about the first roundabout in the US. Well, long story short, while it is old (1930) and a roundabout I still can't verify it was the first so I removed the claim. Thanks for note and I should've checked my facts closer. --Costoa 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

If you attempt to bring in Meatpuppets or Sockpuppets like you did over the weekend you will be reported. JohnnyBGood 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Misplaced Pages there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How about no? I always use edit summaries on articles, but there's no reason to use them on talk pages, as everything is signed. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems that you are using edit summaries only 55% of the time. :) Thanks for not getting mad. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

California State Route 14U

Good catch on this odd remnant road. Who knew Caltrans was THAT wasteful that they'd full on sign a road they don't intend to maintain any longer.JohnnyBGood 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Without commenting on Template:People stub which looks to me like a simple case of "SPUI's doing it so it must be destroyed" I don't suppose you could humour me with a potted history of stub sorting, or at least point me to a page that expains this black art?
brenneman 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the link. It still looks like lunacy to me, but I'm an unrepentant user of {{stub}} for anything more complicated than {{human-stub}} or {{animal-stub}}, leaving the sorting to those with the variety of OCD that makes it fun for them. I do enjoy it when they duke it out, though. Rocket-stub -> space-craft-stub -> satelite-sub -> rocket-stub...
    brenneman 06:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi SPUI! I can't seem to figure which page should be moved over to Misplaced Pages talk:List of infoboxes to fix the cut-and-paste pagemove you noted - there is a redirect Misplaced Pages talk:Infobox which points to it. Since I'm not so informed regarding those pages, I'm going to leave the page deleted as is. At your convenience, could you take a look and perform whatever move needs to be done? If you need me to restore the page again, feel free to let me know. See you around! --HappyCamper 13:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little out of it...I've fixed a handful of cut-and-paste pagemoves before, but this is the first time I've sort of jumped into the middle of something where I'm not sure what the source or target is. I just deleted the page to make way for whatever page move that was required. I can see in the page history that you moved something about an hour after you left me this message, so I guess the pages are they way they are supposed to be now? --HappyCamper 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

wikipolitics all over

give it up with california state routes I think... I've stopped working on them because every time someone tries to better standardise things it causes a big uproar -_-. Good work, though! (I think Route XX (California) makes more sense, so i'm not trying to be an ass to you, just felt like leaving a note thanknig you for your ceaseless efforts in the face of a stubborn crowd -- keep up the good work) atanamir 04:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is NOT Subchat. Please be more civil here.

Subchat is a relatively small bunch of people who discuss trains, and often goof off and flamewar. Misplaced Pages is much bigger, chaps don'r know each other as well, and the upshot is that being annoying can result in more bans and blocks here because admins don't know you as well. Being friendly helps, whether on Subchat OR Misplaced Pages, but even more so over here. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (New Brunswick Station)

padding on ca/sr box?

Do you think the ca/sr infobox looks a little crowded? I think a little table padding and/or a line break between the shield and the "Route XX" heading will make it easier on the eyes. atanamir 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case U.S. Roads

Concerning this case:

If you need a fast assignment of a mediator it generally helps when you are willing to mediate in a different case. If you can't mediate yourself maybe somebody else interested in the case would be willing to mediate and thereby increase your chance to get a mediator fast. --Fasten 11:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

If you are interested in this case please leave a statement at this page for the mediator. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1964 state highway renumbering (California)

Is there a reason why you elected to use 'state highway' here instead of 'state route'? Should we move this to state route renumbering to better conform to our 'state route XX' argument? atanamir 03:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:US state highway renumbering 1964 is this useful at all? I don't know if all states had some massive renubering in 1964, but it looks like it so far. I'm not sure about the island / territories though. atanamir 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

        • Sorry, i forgot -- how do i put something up for speedy deletion? Thanks atanamir 05:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, I've completed a new 'series'-style template for the renumberings page and plopped d on the old template (although it seems to have marked your talk page for deletion as well). I think it looks nice; but i had to move the wikisource box to the bottom on a few of the pages beuase it looked ugly wiht both tbls and no space inbetween. atanamir 05:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Yeah, I was considering that kind of navbox, but the possiblity of a lot of states and making it big made the series-type box seem like a better choice. atanamir 05:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:WASH

Don't tell me you're going to do the mass page moves and force the "State Route x (Washington)" convention on this WikiProject. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we don;t know that for certain. If you do mass page moves, another California will happen. I could care less about the redirects though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, at least no one has started revert wars here. As an unbiased opinion, though (since you know i support the state route XX (stae_name) notation), I don't tihnk you should try moving any of the washington pages yet until CA has been cleared up. Rschen has a;ready asid he doesn't mind redirects, so we can just leave them as such until something has been decided. atanamir 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1 hour block

I've blocked you for an hour until another admin can review the situation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Sup blocking a user you're in a dispute with. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You were moving pages and you were told not to. Hence the hour block until someone could look at it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say until full consensus is reached, all article names stay the the way they are (no matter how messed up it looks now). We're all getting sick and tired of trying to move things back to "California State Route Whatever" Let's work on getting everybody to agree on something with the names, instead of making WP:CASH look like they don't know what they're doing. If I were able to only allow you to edit the Misplaced Pages namespace only, I would. But I can't. So the block stays. --LBMixPro 22:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You speak as if WP:CASH knows what they're doing. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
We could ask you the same thing... but then we'd be guilty of WP:DICK behavior. Obviously you're not above doing that.Gateman1997 22:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Pot/kettle. — Mar. 27, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>

Under the terms of your probation, I am banning you from any page moves on transportation-related articles for 48 hours. Please heed this ban while we discuss this situation. Also, let me know if anyone else has reverted your moves, because I've warned them at WP:AN/I not to do so. Ral315 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just page-move protect all the CASR articles? --LBMixPro 22:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a bit un-wiki for me, but a possible outcome if people continue edit-warring. Ral315 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Also there's 200+ articles in CA, and we might have to protect the WA ones too, and this has the potential to spread to the 2,000+ U.S. Road articles. I mean if ordered to I could help but still... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A precedent which might concern you deeply

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#AndriyK banned. This was pointed out to me by an Arbcomm member. I find it quite relevant to the current dispute. — Mar. 27, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>

I believe I recall an admin telling you that any moves of these articles should be subject to RM, so it's hardly dickish since you should be doing an RM for ANY of them in the first place ;). Gateman1997 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:WASH

What is this? Do you really want to start a war in Washington? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK SPUI

There is a set of compromise offers on the Mediation page. I'm going to ask you nicely. Could you please make no more edits to state route pages until we can achieve a sort of consensus? Thanks in advance. -- Dragoonmac - 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not being specific, I did the same to Rschen, I meant to ask if you could not make any edits related to the dispute, i.e. moving California or Washington SRs. Also please don't make any like changes to other SRs either, while they make sense to you and others, they are highly likely to get people pissed. If you could hold off on redoing infoboxes and moving pages until we work out the dispute, it would ease tenions a lot. -- Dragoonmac - 04:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Route 40

It took a moment to find it. But you should be unblocked. BTW, can you fix up U.S. Route 40, and maybe make a SVG of the Historic Route 40 sign? The infobox doesn't have its mileage. --LBMixPro 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll just leave them with ??s. I don't have specs for the sign, as they are privately owned by a group who wanted to keep US 40 in people's minds (by posting a sign at nearly every phone pole and intersection). I only traced it from a pic in Photoshop. --LBMixPro 05:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm in the middle of a bunch of things at once. For starters lets do Route 40 (which looks like the one I have, with US in the upper section with old style numbering. And Route 395 in Nevada. (Since Interstate 580 (Nevada) replaced the old 395 in Carson City. --LBMixPro 06:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I remember seeing the old style Historic US 40 signs a long time ago, but it's funny how the ones I see around town look completely different.
As a matter of fact, you may want to look at this.

User:SPUI/SR 599

I have to admit, your idea for an infobox with a map in it intrigues me. If more details are added to the map, such as major surrounding and intersecting routes and it's zoomed in a little more this would have my support. I'm a visual person by nature so I like the map idea, and if major routes intersecting the article route were added to a map, then that would satisfy my desire for major intersecting routes being in the infobox. Gateman1997 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

United States railroad maps on Commons

SPUI thank you for uploading all these excellent maps. There are so many of them though that they were overwhelming the railroad maps category. I'm sorting this by moving you images to the subcategory United States railroad maps, this in turn will need subcategorising but as I don't know anything about rail transport on your side of the Atlantic I'm going to leave that job to someone else.

If you have any more US railroad maps to upload then it would be great if you could sort them directly into commons:category:United States railroad maps (or a subcategory of it) rather than the main category. Thanks Thryduulf 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

MA WP

Not a problem, it's less work for me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

MA route lengths

I noticed that you adjusted the route lengths for the infoboxes I added. I've been getting the lengths from MassGIS roads data, although I am not sure if those are updated. Why is there a discrepancy with the distances from the Location Survey Sheets? Polaron 05:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Portal US Roads

I've reverted your blanking of this page. I'm going to assume by now you know blanking pages, especially after they've been kept by consensus vote is vandalism. I'll also assume I don't have to warn you that blanking is a blockable offense that will be enforced should you do so again.Gateman1997 09:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed an RFC regarding your disruptive behavior at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SPUI. You may comment there in the "Response" section. —phh 02:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Knowing your infinite capacity for restraining yourself when someone says something stupid, why don't you take the above page off your watchlist? If anything crops up that you should respond to, someone will tell you. - brenneman 04:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:N9jig-il-shield

The above template has been nominated for deletion. I know that you've made a lot of our highway marker images. Is there anything in particular about these images that means that we need to use the ones from that website, or is there something else that makes this template useful? Jkelly 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I can think of no reason whatsoever that an edit summary of "what the fuck" is in any way necessary when doing an edit to an article. It would be a lot better if you would use edit summaries that are a little less offensive, thanks.--MONGO 08:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be a lot better if you grow up and do so quickly. I started that stub and it is on my watch list and I certainly agree with the edit itself but see no reason for that edit summary. I consider it disruption, I am an administrator and if it continues, I will block you from editing for 24 hours.--MONGO 08:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)