Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 6 October 2006 (revert: until WP:ANI generates consensus on this issue, please don't blank). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1 2 3 4

Template:Project U.S. Roads

:

FWIW, probation is not a "get your whacks in free" card for SPUI's opponents, use your judgment and good sense and warn him first even if you don't have to, and don't dismiss his opinion just because he gets on your nerves. Mindspillage

second everything Mindspillage wrote. - SimonP

we do of course expect admins to use proper judgment and interpret disruption according to community norms, subject to review at WP:ANI. —Dmcdevit

encourage restraint by all. Matthew Brown

Roads that are limited access but not freeways

• Long Island Motor Parkway
• Bronx River Parkway
• Because they run through parks:
  • Soldiers Field Road
  • Memorial Drive (Cambridge)
  • Riverway
  • Charlesgate
  • Femway
  • Jamaicaway
  • Arborway
  • VFW Parkway

Of course none of these are the lowest form, as it is rather hard to find confirmation of those and have them be "notable" enough. Here are some that are probably not "notable":

• Hudson Drive north of Route 57 east of Route 10 in Massachusetts - "The Company also conducted traffic counts at the Hudson Drive access, but stated that it did not conduct an LOS analysis since Hudson Drive is a limited access road with limited associated turning movements (Exh. HO-E-71)."
• could help.

state highway naming

Sorry to see you blocked. I'm trying to find common ground on this but the proponents of Principle I just seem to become more and more inflexible at various attempts to compromise. I suggest something and it gets shot down with something like "you lost just accept it and stop debating us". Any ideas you have on the matter would be helpful. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI: I'm sorry to have had to block you again, but I did, with regret. I chose 15 minutes, a very short block, so you get the point that I am not kidding but you are not really stopped from participating. Please let me repeat... I'm not kidding. Your recent contributions are doing the same thing as the thread on 1 Setpember... arguing instead of moving this forward. Just don't. Please. When you come back just explain what needs to be done and leave it at that. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If your aim was to make a mockery of the whole idea of consensus, congratulations. If your aim was to convince me that the process is a farce, congratulations. If your aim was to get me to be productive, oops. You failed. --SPUI (T - C) 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My aim is to implement what I believe ArbCom wants to have happen. I remind you I asked ArbCom for clarification about my approach, and barring them sahing I'm on the wrong track, and also given the support I'm getting on AN/I (as I read it) I am going to continue with that approach. Does it make a mockery of consensus? That's a harsh way to put it, but yes, consensus has been suspended, (except that there is a metaconsensus to suspend it, whether or not you agree) for the duration. I am not convinced the process is a farce,any more than the whole question is a farce in the first place. As for your being productive or not, that's your choice, you were blocked because in my view you were not being. You can come back, and be productive, (under my metric and that of the other admins involved), or you can not participate (voluntarily or involuntarily) which is entirely up to you. But this process will run to conclusion. With or without you. I'm really sorry. It's nothing personal. But you weren't helping. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Take some time off before you go permanently berserk. --SPUI (T - C) 16:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's my advice to you as well. If you get contentious in that discussion you need to take some time off. One way or another. This is not my normal mode of operation, I assure you. but if you or anyone else gets contentious you will take some time off. You're off block, so my advice is to hang a reply on TinMan's latest post explaining exactly what needs to be done to implement P1 for NJ (P1 is accepted, and will be implemented, for all states except those named off in the P1 proposal at the time of voting) ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. That's not going to happen, not with your "gonzoing". --SPUI (T - C) 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand and accept your position that you may not be able to productively work under these constraints. But, absent someone making me stop, I am going to be trying to drive this along, with or without you. At the end, you're going to be held to the outcome just like everyone else. It is totally your choice whether to participate or not. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, what I'm seeing here is that you've admitted that you're unable to see when you're being disruptive. This explains a lot. Yet, you're simultaneously not taking other people's advice when they tell you to chill out. You're giving no indication whatsoever of being willing to change your approach. Is it any wonder that more and more editors feel you've exhausted the community's patience? Friday (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

double-redirect bot

Hi SPUI, Recently a poll was passed to change all the programming langauges from X programming language to X (programming language) -- kind of like the highway naming poll, except with a better result. However, there's a billion double redirects now for every page, and it's getting painful to be fixing them. Do you know of a bot that cafn help me with this? Thanks, atanamir 17:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Texas Highway sign request

I have a request for a new Texas Highway sign. I need a Toll Route 49 sign made for the State Highway Loop 49 (Texas) article. Thanks. 25or6to4 13:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the pictures of the grand opening, including signs: . 25or6to4 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from last december

You made Not porn redirect to Online puzzle. What am I missing here? JoshuaZ 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Online_puzzle&oldid=13867841, List of online puzzles. ~ PseudoSudo 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Map legends

What do you think about the map legend discussed at WT:USRD/MTF? —Scott5114↗ 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Accessible.png listed for deletion

Potentially problematic edit to Interstate 335 (Minnesota)

I know I shouldn't be editing highway articles, but I found the article Interstate 335 (Minnesota) and I noticed a few things that needed to be corrected on it. Please review my change and let me know if there is anything wrong with it. If so, please revert it as soon as necessary. Again, I know it's bad form for me to edit highway articles, but "Minneapolis" was misspelled. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Shield requests

A few more shield requests for Texas...

State Highway 349

Business State Highway 121-H

State Highway Loop 13, 291, 345, 353, 375, 466, 467, 478, 481

State Highway Spur 53, 148, 421, 536

Farm to Market Road 11, 34, 289, 305, 659, 793, 1053, 1110, 1281, 1338, 1341, 1516, 1518, 1621, 1776, 1905, 2037, 2169, 2217, 2448, 2499, 2538, 2903, 3039, 3040, 3041, 3078, 3351

Ranch to Market Road 479, 783, 1111, 1312, 1674, 2023, 2083, 2291, 2398, 2424, 2886, 3130

Thanks, --Holderca1 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get to them, maybe I won't. Roll the bones. --SPUI (T - C) 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No Problem. Whenever you get the time. --Holderca1 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what software do you use to create them, maybe I will try my hand at creating them. Thanks. --Holderca1 15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Route and Interstate shields

I see you have a released-to-public-domain template on all your shields. However, wouldn't U.S. Route (except California style) and Interstate Highway shields, as creations based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, be works of the U.S. government and, thus, public domain by default? --Kitch 00:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If they're public domain, what does it matter? --SPUI (T - C) 18:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Time to split this discussion page into archive pages. --Kitch 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Two Things

Hey SPUI,

1. What exactly do you need for the RI signs?

2. PLEASE archive this page, it takes over 45 seconds for it to render on my piece of shit computer. Thanks!

xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest the same thing. Over 300 sections already! Peter O. (Talk) 23:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've found User:Werdnabot does well at automatic archival, only fails if timestamps are missing. You might even get the amusement of breaking the bot, see instructions here. — CharlotteWebb 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone else should just archive it, maybe he won't notice! Stratosphere 23:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm tired of it chugging down my internet connection, taking 30+ seconds to render on my wireless! He was delibrately doing it to piss users off, and never followed up on MANY suggestions. May the page load times be gone for good (and any reverts should be considered vandalism for subjecting people to such torture). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not "vandalism" and "torture", but "disruption" and "deliberately making it difficult to communicate with an editor." --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a lot of stuff that SPUI deleted after he tried to leave last year. Do we want to dig this back up? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. That would be a lot of warnings, notices, etc. just "gone". But he does have an impressive block log to make up for that. And, is he "leaving" again this time? (Blank user page) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So should we resurrect the stuff? I can take a preliminary look to see what it involves. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Before the page is blanked (which removes warnings, notices, arguments, etc. - the former being against policy), let's have a discussion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)