User talk:NE2

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

As noted in my post - which some brilliant soul has already archived so nobody will ever see it again - I did go look at the Census Bureau site in an effort to clear up the discrepancy. Thanks for pointing me to the original census files - but they are huge, and it's really not worth my time to wade through all that. Appreciate your kind intention, though. Textorus (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgia State Route 135, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas Municipal Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the bannered routes articles is to have them all at one location. To break them out by state again defeats the whole purpose of the article. If the data is good, then simply port the data onto the bannered routes article and not at the state. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. They're still all listed there, just no longer redundantly. --NE2 01:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean that the bannered routes would be listed on the "bannered routes" page and not on the state page that you have moved them back too. Originally, before the advent of "bannered routes" they were scattered in various state pages and it was decided to redirected them all at one location if there were a lot of them... US 1 being one of those. Basically, I'm asking you to please move them back to the bannered routes page. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move them to the state page; they were already there. I merely moved the one-sentence histories. --NE2 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgia State Route 520, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darton College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orville E. Babcock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crystal Lake, Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're interested, but I created Boca Ciega Bay and Clam Bayou. Would be happy to have your expertise and assistance in fixing them up. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what happened to the content of the article which used to be at namespace:

History of Brevard County, Florida ?

It seems to me that A) there was content there that was not present in the Brevard County article, and B) the proper way to handle this situation would have been to create a more summarized section in the Brevard County article, and have a link to a comprehensive article on the "History of Brevard County, Florida".

There doesn't seem to be any history of the former content when one clicks on history. Could that content even be restored if it was determined that that is what should be done? I happen to be working on content in this area, and there is a category that goes along with this content. It seems to me that an article should exist, consistent with all the other cities and counties which are handled that way. Greg Bard (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. For some reason, I wasn't seeing it when I clicked on history. I found it and reverted it. Perhaps we should summarize better in the main article on Brevard, but there is sufficient content for it, and the content, due to its nature, merits its own comprehensive article. Greg Bard (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted back. As it is, there are two articles with essentially the same text. --NE2 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to deal with this, is to summarize the comprehensive article in sections in the Brevard County article, as I have stated. This is the way it is handled everywhere else. Are we going to have a problem here? Greg Bard (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we won't have a problem if the article is summarized properly. --NE2 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom in on this sign to your right. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a random meaningless ceremonial name. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a common name for the new bridge.

Here's some stuff about him: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1987-01-29/news/0100340224_1_benedict-ben-watts-district-5 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1993-03-28/news/9303250606_1_bill-benedict-bridge-johns-river http://www.zoominfo.com/p/C.A.-Benedict/256820266 --NE2 19:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. Hey, have you ever been to the old bridge? User:Ebyabe took some in 2010, and it looked like it was in better condition when he took it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was there in about 2000. I probably have photos lying around somewhere. --NE2 20:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you purposefully adding gaps in the route when it was all listed? --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add a gap, but directed readers to the SR 515 article to avoid a long redundancy and associated problems with different information in either one. --NE2 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I swore I detailed US 76 through Georgia before the jct list was moved to its own page. It didn't have a gap then; if the problem is different information, then simply cut-paste the one that is correct. It's better to lay it all out there without the user having jump to another article for just a section of road. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to watch both articles and copy changes from one to the other every time someone changes only one? Can you guarantee that you won't stop at some point? --NE2 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about a junction list, which for all intents and purposes shouldn't change much once in place. If something major changes, I am sure I or someone else will update the articles as needed. But there is no guarantee, which is true for all stand-alone road articles needing updates but haven't yet for various reasons. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it change? There are old alignments that could be added, perhaps other major non-state routes... U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey, a so-called "good article", does not include the junctions on the US 1 overlap. --NE2 20:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course change is a constant, but they don't change overnight. The next change on US 76 could be months away or years away. Comparing how other articles do it doesn't justify the laziness of it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not lazy to take into account long-term quality of the article. What's lazy is putting the same thing in three different articles and expecting others to keep them consistent (which they already weren't - SR 515 had a SR 5 Alt. that hasn't existed for quite some time, while neither SR 5 nor US 76 had it). --NE2 21:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, have it your way. I just hate all that effort deleted for sake of not wanting to maintain it and force the reader jump articles to simply follow one route. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is it's more effort to maintain it. --NE2 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have valid points here, but I side with Washu. I know this is old but still, this should go to other articles with this same thing. It would likely be a good idea to use a Sync mechanism for the concurrencies so when one page with the concurrency has its part changed, it auto-syncs to the non-changed one.--AC325 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 378, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SC 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake! This was another one that seemed to go by a different name than XYZ State Forest. I looked at the source you gave me with the state forest listings here and it lists Big Shoals Public Lands. Can you help me sort out what's what and make sure I don't make another bad mess up? Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems to me there should be an article on Florida State forests more generally? How many there are, who manages them, funding, etc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See page 7 of the PDF:

Fee simple title interest in these public lands is divided between the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) and the SRWMD. Management of the property is subdivided among three agencies: the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry (DOF), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks (Division), and the SRWMD. The DOF holds the Board lease on the northern 1,673 acres of the Hamilton County property known as Big Shoals State Forest. The Division holds the Board lease for the southwest (1,012 acres) portion ofthe property within Hamilton County and for a smaller parcel (288 acres) located on the opposite side of the Suwannee River in Columbia County. The SRWMD owns the southeast 983 acres of the Hamilton County portion of the property and leases the northern half of this area to the Division. The lands under lease to the Division comprise Big Shoals State Park. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) regulate recreational hunting on the roughly 2,140-acre Big Shoals Wildlife Management Area (WMA), which includes the DOF property and a portion of SRWMD land. The Agency Boundaries Map delineates these jurisdictional boundaries.

It appears that the BSPL includes the non-overlapping BSSP and BSSF, with the BSWMA covering most of the BSSF, a small part of the BSSP, and the rest of the BSPL that's in neither. There's also a Big Shoals Conservation Area to the northeast (see map p. 68), which also seems to be owned by the SRWMD. --NE2 19:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a stab at it when I'm a little fresher. Thanks so much for your help!!! Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I redirected this to Fort Walton Beach, but I see it noted various places. Is it it's own community? I'm kind of surprised there is no article on it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just the part of Walton County south of the Choctawhatchee/Intracoastal: http://www.visitflorida.com/en-us/cities/south-walton.html http://www.visitsouthwalton.com/ FWB is in Okaloosa County, so it's not in South Walton. Emerald Coast might be the best target for now. --NE2 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you Believe everything you see on Google Maps??? I don't. So the message on the route's talk page, is also disputed in my opinion because I think someone but the wrong Route number on the Map. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what --NE2 04:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You posted that it used to be apart of State Route 49 and that is what is What I was talking about above. Sorry if I confused you. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted something else too. --NE2 06:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting to you about this only because you created the I-494 redirect back in 2007. There seem to have been two I-494 proposals, the second along Lake Shore Drive about the same time as the first. I'm assuming that these files are legit enough regarding the second: text map (the map is linked from the text but the link on the archive version doesn't work; a later map exists but I can't find its context, only an old link on Kurumi's page). If agreed, could the redirect become a DAB page to the Crosstown and LSD articles, with the above info added to the History section of LSD's? Mapsax (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. --NE2 01:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?? You don't sound too enthusiastic about it.... Mapsax (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mississippi Highway 16 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MS 1

Mississippi Highway 18 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grand Gulf State Park

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Old Hillsborough County Courthouse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Courthouse''' was constructed in 1892 in the block bounded by Madison Street, Lafayette Street (now [[Kennedy Boulevard (Tampa)|Kennedy Boulevard]], Florida Avenue, and Franklin Street. This

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Road data/strings/USA/IA was correct. There's only one blue link for any county road in all of Iowa: County Road 105 (Iowa), which redirects to Iowa Highway 105. The expected target of County Road 99 (Iowa), Iowa Highway 99 has not been created yet. In any case, the links don't include the county name because it's a statewide system. There are no other links to "turn blue" at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 07:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read it and weep. --NE2 07:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see. But this confusion is likely to come up again, so I just repointed them to Lincoln-Douglas debates, which has a list of the sites. WilyD 16:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, NE2.

I think I got all of your history undeletions, please let me know if I missed any. Also, it's not in the preloaded form but for histories behind redirects it would be a huge boon to link the dynamic "no redirect" link (see here) in the request so we don't end up wondering where the deleted content is (because we're looking at the history for the target!). LMK if I can get any others for you, if you just want to dump a slew of links on a talk page instead of using that pre-loader. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I got all for now, though in a few months I may come across another batch. --NE2 20:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Protonk: Turns out I found another: County Road 615 (Indian River County, Florida) --NE2 21:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [1], where do you see CR TT? According to the 2011 IDOT map, it's CR 59. Plus, I've only ever seen one CR shield in Rock Island County, and it was up near the Whiteside County line on IL 84, which shows it as CR 57 now. –Fredddie™ 21:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - it's also marked at the other end. I also see signs for CRs A to E going south off IL 92 in that area. (CR A is marked only at the south end, with a patch over something else.) --NE2 21:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Routing of the Great River Road, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IL 9 and IL 17 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite CAstat has been nominated for merging with Template:CalStats. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Missouri Route 76, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Table Rock State Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and will be more careful. Cheers. Faizan 06:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ne2,

Why did you revert my edit? It redirected those pages to the right article. Robert4565 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced links to the correct topic with links to a different related topic. SR 14 Truck redirects to a section of SR 14 because there's info there. If the other truck routes get appropriate mentions, they too can be redirected. (What you did was not redirecting.) --NE2 21:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE2,

Thank you for making that correction. I'm sorry about that mistake. Robert4565 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

West Virginia Route 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bethany College, Marshall County Airport and Newport, OH

Illinois Route 127 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Horseshoe Lake (Illinois)

List of Inter-County Highways in Minnesota (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pelican Lake (Minnesota)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

U.S. Route 50 in Virginia

added links pointing to Fair Oaks, VA and Fair Oaks, Virginia

West Virginia Route 3

added links pointing to Union, WV and Union, West Virginia

Frostburg, Maryland

added a link pointing to Palace Theatre

Ice Mountain

added a link pointing to Wye

West Virginia Route 28

added a link pointing to Grant County Airport

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed I have reversed some of your edits. The reason for the reversal of the redirects to US 321 is because its an article for the entire route, and when you redirect it by state, you are putting them in the middle of the article... where the user will then be forced to scroll up to read from the beginning. The article is not written as three articles in one, it is one article for all three states together. So please, don't try to departmentalize the article with redirects when it is not written that way.

As for the requested split for US 117, the hidden note was unneeded. The purpose of the banner is to begin discussion... thus you should start the conversation on it, otherwise I will delete the banner inactivity on your part. Keep in mind, if it is discussed and approved, then someone will have to create that article with meaningful information for it; right now there is just three sentences, so that is a lot to expand on to make this a worthwhile split. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard practice for route in state redirects. Reverted.

As for US 117, best would be mentioning it in the history for US 158. Right now it's being put in a totally unrelated article. --NE2 00:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Write that in the discussion you just setup, not in the hidden notes for some other editor to find. Show me where it is standard practice to confuse readers to the middle of an article for them to scroll-up on? --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every bloody redirect from [route] in [state] redirects to the section. --NE2 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you been told that "everybody does it" is not a viable answer as to why? I ask again, where is the rule you stating that exists? --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ask you where the rule saying don't do it is. The fact that section redirects work at all is a good enough counterexample. --NE2 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: we've both reverted thrice. So the 3RR applies now (as well as the rule against vandalism, which certainly applies to your removal of my comment if nothing else). --NE2 02:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: [3] --NE2 02:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you could not find anything to prove your point, I get it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except every other fucking redirect. Bugger off. --NE2 03:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The change of redirect on US 11 Truck doesn't bother me, though I question why you redirect US 19 Truck to it as well. Anywho, I don't know why you insist on writting hidden comments on US 117 when you created a discussion thread for the split, which is why I keep deleting it... you need to argue why you want the article to split and let others get in on the discussion. Just creating the split discussion with no discussion is a pointless thing to do and will likely be removed by a bot or someone else (I've been nice so far on that, I want you to start that discussion). Regarding the redirects, again when a user hits the article, they are not departmentalize but it is one complete article; it's like opening a book and starting at chapter 8. Just because you have seen this on some others doesn't make it right. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where else did I make those comments? --NE2 03:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hidden comment when you do this: "!--this has no relation to the current route, and would fit better as a section of the US 158 article-->" Nobody is going to read that unless they are editing the page and I kept replying in my comment reverts this fact. You have to open the discussion in the banner link you added to get the ball rolling; otherwise your split request will go nowhere. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just said that I "created a discussion thread for the split". Anyway, I've done the split/merge, putting the info in U.S. Route 158#History where it makes more sense. --NE2 03:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so much for discussing it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to discuss it, you could have. --NE2 03:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't start a discussion page. You just put the banner up and left a hidden comment; I saw it only because that article is under my watch (like most highways in the Carolinas). You just now unilaterally moved it now. I wasn't totally against the move, but I wanted to know what others may say about it, just like we did with SR 159. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could have started a discussion on the talk page. Instead you went on about the placement of my comment. --NE2 03:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my place to start the conversation for you since I had no strong feelings about it; unlike SR 159, where I did take the lead on discussion for you. I was trying to get you to do it with my reverts and revert comments, then things started to spiral out of hand. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the U.S. Route 360 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Brickell Avenue

added a link pointing to Address

Ohio State Route 32

added a link pointing to Pike Lake State Park

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could we at least pretend that since I live in North Carolina that maybe I know something about the roads in the state. I know we don't agree on various things, but I tend to have been to some of these places. Here are some pictures: Soco Gap, Black Mountain Gap (NC 128), Craven Gap (NC 694), Linville Falls Road Flyover of NC 183 (Blue Ridge Parkway spur also used) and Rockfish Gap (w/USBR 76). I've driven on most of the BRP in North Carolina and stopped at Rockfish Gap on a drive to Charlottesville last year. I appreciate you thanking me after I showed you undeniable proof, but I can't make changes and reply to every hidden comment in the comment thread box, and having conversations in hidden text within the article is not good wiki standards. I am not against all your edits, but I wish you could be more collaborative with others and have a little leap of faith. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I was just trying to get it done. Now go and apply your own standards. --NE2 03:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NE2. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of State Route 713 (Virginia 1922-1933), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of State Route 606 (Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Virginia State Route 606 (Fairfax and Loudoun Counties). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virginia State Route 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gloucester Historic District. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- Just a FYI, I found some refs on the name origin of Clinchco. Let me know how to proceed as I see the article has a discuss tag.Coal town guy (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the books you linked on the talk page, I don't see anything saying what Clinchco was named for. (And remember, this would have to trump an existing reference that says it's named for the railroad.) --NE2 16:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The existing ref is a book, why would that need to be trumped?? If you mean the quality of a ref, no diff hoestly. However I see the point that yes, a ref that explicitly states, oh by the way, Clinchco was named for a coal company even though the coal company name is virtually the same as the town and the Dickenson County Coal Miners Memorial is in front of the Clinchco post office, it could be in some remote and utterly implausible way named after who knows.........thought I would look and see, thanks!Coal town guy (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Virginia State Route 28

added links pointing to Oak Grove, VA and Oak Grove, Virginia

Virginia State Route 42

added a link pointing to Dayton Historic District

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your list of the highest bridges in Florida; Yes, the US 19 Bridge over the Cross Florida Barge Canal was higher before the reconstruction. I don't remember how much higher it was, but it was higher. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just checked those two links. My bad! Thanks!

Seems like it is some other "Alligator Creek" whose page is still uncreated. The particular links are ambiguous again! 7Sidz (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your revert as 1) the major junctions I had did cover all major cities along the route and 2) I can find no policy that major junctions should be evenly spaced and it's not really possible because highways simply aren't built to have evenly spaced junctions with major roads/highways. I've explained the reasoning for the change on the article's talk page. Please discuss any objections you may have to the change at Talk:Interstate 4#Major junctions (infobox). AHeneen (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#How did we end up with the "Stations along X Railroad lines" categories?. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. I've moved on. --NE2 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former primary state highways in Virginia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Howardsville, Virginia and Howardsville, VA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former primary state highways in Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spotsylvania, VA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of former primary state highways in Virginia (Bristol District) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• with a portion on Goodson and Mary Streets becoming a realigned [[US 421 (VA)|US 421]].<ref>{{CTB minutes|12-1966-01|pages=17-19</ref> The remaining {{convert|3|mi}} of SR 76 lying outside

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a glass sock? SlightSmile 19:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a glass slipper but it makes you hungry. --NE2 20:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I get it now thanks. I didn't know those were called glass slippers. I guess that's one thing I don't mind being out to lunch about. SlightSmile 20:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are. --NE2 21:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was a pun! Or whatever, I get the drift anyways what you're talking about. Thanks for explaining. SlightSmile 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a density map would be more useful. I considered that but thought a total population map was slightly better. Counties are not like states. A county with a high overall population will also have a high density, since there is relatively little variation in area (granted Union County and Palm Beach County differ greatly, but hear me out). Perhaps a better way to say this might be both a total population map and a population density map would both illustrate the urbanization and density of a county. There are no high-population counties in Florida that are not high-density and there are no low-population counties that are not low density. Plus, people can just see the relative size of the county and imagine its density. I might make a density map later, though (if someone else doesn't do it first). It would end up looking quite similar to the total population map.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 95 in Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Lee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the highway redirects, I had just done like 50 and I was in a rhythm. Did you fix them already or should I do that? spiderjerky (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed them already. (PS: if you wait a few days a bot should come around and fix double redirects.) --NE2 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...just wondering if you could explain this reverted edit. I don't see anything wrong with it, but I was wondering what you thought. Regards — c16sh (speak up) 21:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you pipe East Falls Church to Falls Church? The former is an unincorporated part of Arlington County. The other changes are essentially meaningless. --NE2 21:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virginia Byway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Round Hill, Virginia, Hillsboro, Virginia and Newport, Virginia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Virginia Byway may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |[[Virginia State Route 620 (Fairfax County)|Virginia State Route 620]] )Braddock Road) near [[Centreville, VA|Centreville]] to [[SR 123 (VA)|SR 123]] (Ox Road) at [[Donovans Corner,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virginia Byway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frogtown, VA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Caitlin snow. Since you had some involvement with the Caitlin snow redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. J Greb (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former primary state highways in Virginia (Culpeper and Northern Virginia Districts), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flint Hill, VA and Flint Hill, Virginia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do sincerely regret if I have come across as bullying in any way. I have been frustrated lately with the growing number of disambiguation links, and the difficulty they pose for readers - there have been months where I have fixed 10,000 links or more, and the overall number needing to be fixed still continues to rise. I appreciate the fact that you have been very good about fixing the links for which you get notices (you can see how easy it is to inadvertently link to the wrong page), and I wish more editors would follow your example in that. In my determination to enforce guidelines designed to minimize confusion and error, I have failed to effectively convey the volume of discussion and reasoning which has gone into making those guidelines. Again, I apologize, and I hope that we can work together productively in the future. bd2412 T 13:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, I suppose. I'm not big on apologies in either direction.

Question: if your aim is to make disambiguation links easier to fix, why would you want to put the County Road 3 (Florida) links in with those of other states? Most regular Florida editors know enough to not link to County Road 3, but may think the former will be unambiguous enough (as it usually is in Florida). This is very similar to place names: I wouldn't link to Flint Hill, but as you can see above I did link to Flint Hill, Virginia. (Unfortunately the former didn't link to the latter, but IIRC there's a bot that generates lists of Foo disambiguations without links to existing Foo (Bar) or Foo, Bar pages for manual fixing.) --NE2 13:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a single disambiguation page existed for all roads titled "County Road 3", I would think that it would have subsections for states with multiple roads by that name. The problem here, however, is not with searching but with linking. Virtually all disambiguation pages in Wikipedia (something like 99.996%) are at a title that is either a base page name like Phoenix or a page with a "(disambiguation)" title like George Washington (disambiguation). Editors (and disambiguators) can therefore expect that a page with a different disambiguator in the title, like "(Florida)", is not a disambiguation page but a final target using a disambiguator to distinguish the page from another title like a potential County Road 3 (Indiana). Of course, there are redirects with other disambiguators (like Phoenix (album) and Phoenix (film), which point to the disambiguation page, Phoenix, but it's easier for disambiguators to see and fix everything pointing to a single page, Phoenix than to address multiple disambiguation pages for different kinds of media named "Phoenix". If there are other county roads in other states with the same numbers (which seems inevitable), then eventually there will be a disambiguation page at County Road 3, and editors erroneously linking to that page for a road in Florida might assume that they can "fix" the error merely by adding "(Florida)" to the link. They might do that anyway, but it will be easier for disambiguators to fix errors en masse if all roads lead to one target, rather than there being multiple disambiguation pages for the same title in different places. bd2412 T 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get this 99.996% figure? I would have thought there were a lot more City, State place name disambiguations. --NE2 14:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean pages like Jefferson Township, Pennsylvania? Those are still at what we would consider the base page name, i.e., not using a disambiguator in parentheses. The use of a parenthetical is supposed to have a special significance, to the effect that "Foo" might be ambiguous, but "Foo (bar)" is the specific page you are looking for, the final stop. bd2412 T 14:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply another way of disambiguating. --NE2 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is the most common way - comma disambiguation is pretty much limited to geographic entities, and even some of those also requite a parenthetical to completely disambiguate from other titles (e.g. Saugerties, New York, and Saugerties (village), New York). bd2412 T 14:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just as County Road 3 (Florida) requires a county name. --NE2 14:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be just as true if the disambiguation page were at County Road 3, since adding "(Florida)" does not get you to a final destination - although some readers might expect that it would. At this point, it is just an extra word. bd2412 T 15:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is just as true for place names. Yawn. --NE2 15:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to bore you. bd2412 T 16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Wellington Road should put to rest any misconceptions that there's a functional difference between parenthetical and comma disambiguation. --NE2 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers who are familiar with Wikipedia will know that the entries with commas are municipal entities (i.e. that Wellington Road, Cork and Wellington Road, South Australia are not merely the names of actual roads), and those with parentheses are some other kind of thing; Wellington Road (Perry Barr) requires further information on the disambiguation page precisely because it is not a road. In each case, of course, either the comma disambiguator or the parenthetical disambiguator indicates that the page to which it points is the final target, an article and not merely another disambiguation page. Now, here's the really interesting part. Wellington Road (Perry Barr) is a stadium, but is located off of a road named "Wellington Road" - which is itself merely an old designation for a relatively short stretch of A4040 road. I presume that the topic is not independently notable; if it was, then we would have an additional meaning for "Wellington Road" (and, more specifically, an additional meaning for the title Wellington Road (Perry Barr), which could then refer either to the stadium or to the stretch of road). In that case, would it make more sense to add a link to A4040 road in the existing Wellington Road disambiguation page, or to create an entirely new disambiguation page with the title Wellington Road (Perry Barr), moving the article on the stadium to something like Wellington Road (Perry Barr stadium)? bd2412 T 16:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? "Wellington Road (Bóthar Wellington in Irish) is an inner-city stretch of road..." "Wellington Road / Langhorne Creek Road is a South Australian secondary road..." --NE2 16:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppose someone wanted to create a separate disambiguation page for Wellington Road (North America), listing only the two uses that are in North America. Would that be appropriate, in your view? bd2412 T 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wouldn't be inappropriate, though I wouldn't see much of a point. What does this have to do with comma disambiguation? --NE2 17:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE2, please refrain from listing secondary roads (example: SR 1000) in the junction lists if you decide to do any more North Carolina highway articles. Unless the highway sign specifically lists it (which in rare cases like along US 64 it does), it serves no beneficial directional purpose for most people (the number system is used by state for mostly administration purposes; usually located on various signage {street sign, stop sign, random post} at interchange in very small numbers). Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"historical routes belong in history section" - what the fuck? Oh well, you own the state and apparently Tennessee; do what you want. --NE2 22:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't what I wanted to talk about on your page, but since you brought it up... the value of placing historical routes in the jct list notes column is unnecessary details at a very road geek level. The notes column should include things like: type of junction, also goes to sites, construction status, etc. The historical routes should be written about in the history section of the article, not identified at a interchange that use to be a terminus for a pre-1930 state highway. I don't mind you making updates in the Carolinas or Tennessee articles, but if they are on my watch list, I will follow-up, if necessary. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the history of an intersecting road belong in the history of this road? The idea is to link someone reading the junction list to the description of the former importance of the road. --NE2 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't warrant being even in the history section of the road, then it's clutter. The question "is this relevant to the article" should come first before adding something in hopes that it will intrigue a reader to read about a historic road. To give a different example, I also dealt with an issue where an editor added Ralph T. Troy as a notable person in Boone, North Carolina; I read in more of this person I never heard of to find he was a former mayor from Louisiana and he happened to stay in Boone for several years after he long left office... he didn't do anything note worthy while living in Boone so it wasn't relevant to have him listed in the Boone article. We can't list every person that passed through a town and we can't list every historic road that crossed paths 50+ years ago on a junction list, it's just not relevant. I said my piece, you may sort of agree with me or not. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't warrant being in the history of THIS ROAD because it's another road. But go on, keep applying your anal standards. It's your state; you own it. --NE2 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure chatting with you too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You too. Shame chat isn't all we do here. --NE2 02:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince William Parkway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wellington Road. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your Edits may have "improved" the article, but you removed cities. And changed unnecessary things.

Also Thank You for all the other edits to the other Highway articles. ACase0000 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed cities that I couldn't find on signs in Google street view. --NE2 22:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://media.wfyi.org/acrossIndiana/segments.asp?episode=-1916013356

I am no longer in IN, but this should help. My camera operator and I followed Skidmore to the location in the video. I couldn't find it on my own. I am driving the black van through the ford in the video. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's near Vernon, not Dupont, actually.----Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottandrewhutchins: I think this is it. Nothing to do with SR 7, but it may have carried SR 3 before 1933. --NE2 22:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cordele, Georgia page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody AWB bug. Fuck it. --NE2 00:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your merge suggestion, and voted against it. As BL 80 in Winnemucca is signed along three separate routes (US 95, SR 289, SR 794), all of which currently have articles, and BL 80 is essentially a redirect (in fact it was, but I decided, based on your suggestion, to make it more of a disambiguation page), I don't see any reason to merge them (plus all Nevada SR's currently have their own article regardless of co-signed BL's). Famartin (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SR 289 and SR 794 should both redirect to BL 80 (or at least the latter; the former has a separate portion). They are the same road and it's incredibly silly to duplicate the information. --NE2 08:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should argue this on the talk page; however, they are in fact separate roads (if you look at a map, you will notice this). SR 289 follows Winnemucca Boulevard, then East Second Street, with only the first 0.5 mile co-signed as BL 80. BL 80 turns right onto SR 794 from Winnemucca Blvd. BL 80 is also co-signed with US 95 for 1.6 miles, west of the end of SR 289. Also, all Nevada BL's which are cosigned with SR's redirect to the SR, not the other way around. You should check Nevada state highway precedent on Wikipedia before making such a suggestion. Famartin (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is no excuse for stupidity. --NE2 08:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we probably should move this (all) to the SR 794 talk page, but why is it stupid? NDOT considers the SR's to be the "real" roads; BL's are signed for convenience/tourism aspects and cannot be found in NDOT's inventory anywhere. Famartin (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason Nevada State Route 593 redirects: it's part of a longer route that doesn't need duplication. PS: I don't really care; just get off my lawn. --NE2 09:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That redirects to a single continuous road of which the SR is a part. Anyone looking at a map can see that SR 794 is a separate roadway from the rest of the BL. And, if you are going dispense with further discussion by saying "get off my lawn", then I'll respond in kind and remove your merge suggestion. Famartin (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kentucky Route 210, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green River Reservoir State Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were the original perpetrator of Template:Cite CAstat back in 2007. I'm in the process of merging this with Template:CalStats as per some merge discussion. There are a few things I can't work out from looking, maybe you can remember.

• There is a parameter passed of |ex=. Apart from being a reference to an extraordinary session of the legislature, does it also form part of the key for Cite CAstat/title? (like year ex ch)
• There is a parameter passed of |res=. This is supposed to be a resolution number, but what is confusing me is that the title record (where it exists) has within its text an entirely different resolution number.
• Ditto for |hr=

My guess is that these were ideas which seemed good at the time but that never got fully developed. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 22:36, wikitime= 14:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, I don't remember. You do know you can do this, right? --NE2 15:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Claysville, Harrison County, Kentucky

added a link pointing to Licking River

List of state highways in Kentucky (1–999)

added a link pointing to KY 3

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the piping of Dinosaur World (Florida) to Dinosaur World (theme parks) to avoid a redirect. You undid that revision and stated “not the way to handle that”. What did I do wrong? Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FieldMarine: You avoided a redirect. Please see WP:R2D. --NE2 17:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the short overlap of U.S. Route 17 in Florida and Clay CR 214 between Decoy Road and Sungarden Road. It's not signed as an overlap. I discovered it when I was driving from New York City and spotted a US 17 sign with an erroneous cardinal direction just south of Decoy Road. It said "EAST" US 17 when it should've said "South." Thanks for the mileage, BTW. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NE2!!! Did you move the former Tennessee State Route 42 into the list with the current routes? Just wondering who did it because it doesn't Belong in the current routes list. ACase0000 (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't (check the history), but it has a gray background, meaning it's former. --NE2 14:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did check history but I couldn't find out who did it. But put all differences and arguments aside it still shouldn't be in current routes when there is a former section. I came to you for help because you are experienced in roads. ACase0000 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apopka was out of order. I was trying to fix the rank. For some reason, the Rank column won't sort properly. But if you sort the population column you'll see that the Rank numbers are now correct. Do you know how to fix the Rank sorting and fix Apopka's order at the same time?Inkan1969 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You change the numbers. I have no idea why you added a bunch of random formatting and removed a bu