User talk:Polaron: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
== Urban areas == |
== Urban areas == |
||
This template is not talking about MSA's. It's talking about urban areas. See the talk page on the template for further discussion. [[User:MojaveNC|MojaveNC]] ([[User talk:MojaveNC|talk]]) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
This template is not talking about MSA's. It's talking about urban areas. See the talk page on the template for further discussion. [[User:MojaveNC|MojaveNC]] ([[User talk:MojaveNC|talk]]) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Template:USLargestMetros|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Template:USLargestMetros]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:31, 9 January 2008
EU entry
You have deleted the EU entry in the List of countries by population repeatedly without discussion. A thoroughly rationale and broad consensus lead to a final decision to include the entry. Stop your unilateral deletion campaign. Lear 21 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Concerning List of countries: 'Quote': "For internal consistency, either the EU should be on all list of countries or on none of the lists of countries." --Polaron | Talk 02:21, 14 July 2007. [1] The consensus and rationale has lead to the inclusion. Lear 21 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the last discussions and arguments, can you agree on implementing the unranked entry in the List of countries and outlying territories by total area ? It would create a consistent design among the Wiki-lists ... Lear 21 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- It should not be listed in the table. The current implementation (at least the last time I checked) with the text outside the table is probably the most acceptable compromise. --Polaron | Talk 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:NYSR notification
Your imput is needed into a weekly collaboration for articles under the jurisdiction of WP:NYSR. Comments are at WT:NYSR. Regards.Mitch32contribs 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Maps
Do you happen to have a map of California from about 1930? Thank you. --NE2 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but the maps I have are all for the eastern US (east of the Mississippi River). There is a map of transcontinental routes that includes California but not very much detail. --Polaron | Talk 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Does it have enough detail to show whether US 99 still takes the dogleg through Visalia that it did in 1928? --NE2 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would have to say that yes it still does (both in 1930 and 1931). The cities that are marked are Bakersfield then Stockton, but there is an obvious "bump" just north of Bakersfield where the route swings northeast a bit then heads back on its northwest course. --Polaron | Talk 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. I'll see what else I can find. --NE2 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would have to say that yes it still does (both in 1930 and 1931). The cities that are marked are Bakersfield then Stockton, but there is an obvious "bump" just north of Bakersfield where the route swings northeast a bit then heads back on its northwest course. --Polaron | Talk 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Does it have enough detail to show whether US 99 still takes the dogleg through Visalia that it did in 1928? --NE2 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Route 22 description
Yes, I'll do what I can (not now, I have to go out). My personal experience with the road is limited to the area between northern Westchester and Rensselaer counties, but I have a similar paucity of experience with US 9 north of Albany and I didn't let that stop me there. It definitely needs to be rewritten with a feel for the area.
As it happens, I'm heading for Danbury Fair Mall with my son, which would bring me across the highway in the Brewster-Pawling area, so maybe I could take a few pictures (although I hate taking any sort of outdoor landscapes at this time of year since the colors are not there. But at least I can scout for areas that would look good in warm weather). Daniel Case 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I am now done with all the improvements I saw that could be made. I have also looked around and found, to my delight, that we now have a U.S. Route 20 in New York article. It's good that we finally have one on what is only our longest numbered highway; however, it has the same problem with its route description.
Likewise, we also have U.S. Route 1 in New York and U.S. Route 202 in New York, relatively short routes that need to have real descriptions written (and are relatively short, and in the case of 202 have pictures I can use). So I will be doing a little more work for the project in the coming weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Date reversal
I'm sure you have a good reason to reverse dates, as you did in Jay, Vermont in the infobox. This is not standard American and will puzzle most of us the first time we see it. Does it have to be that way? Student7 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't think there's an absolute rule so feel free to reformat the date. That is the international standard though but go ahead and change it to what you think is better. --Polaron | Talk 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't do any more reverts on Ivory Coast
Even though it's a content dispute, don't revert Robscure, because you are currently breaching 3RR, which is a 24h block. Miranda 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's an undiscussed copy-paste move of a controversial issue. This is not a content dispute. Robscure is trying to bypass WP:RM. --Polaron | Talk 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I added a little bit more information, including a template or two. Do you have anything else to add? I'll try to look up the history of the neighborhood as well. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair Haven, Vermont
Just wanted to make a request: if you move articles such as Fair Haven (town), Vermont, would you be willing to update the county template? If you don't, as WP:R2D notes, it can make the template confusing. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- What was wrong with the redirect? Did it stop working? There is no need to fix redirects if they get you to the right place per WP:REDIRECT#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. --Polaron | Talk 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, templates like that are the one place where you should "fix" them, so it remains bolded on the article. --NE2 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I-90
If I remember correctly, you have New York Times access. Does [2] have anything useful about I-90? --NE2 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A few more that might have details, especially with respect to I-90 east of I-787: [3][4] --NE2 06:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[5] also looks useful. --NE2 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Does the first one mention whether the I-90 equivalent (Route 504) goes through Albany? Does the last one mention an existing plan to build I-90 east into Massachusetts? If it would be easier to email the articles to me (neroute2 at gmail), that would be useful; thank you. --NE2 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, the first article does not give any route numbers (even legislative) at all, and the last one doesn't mention Massachusetts. Anyway, I'll email all four articles to you in a few minutes. --Polaron | Talk 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. You were right that there's not much in them, though the fourth one certainly is useful. The details I'm trying to figure out relate to I-90 east of I-787. On Talk:Interstate 90 in New York I've taken some notes; particularly useful are the 1955 and 1959 maps. You don't happen to have access to old state laws, do you? If so, the descriptions of Interstate Route 504 and Interstate Route Connection 541 over the years would probably shed some light. --NE2 17:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Law School library here has the "New York State Legislative Annual" but I don't know if it's detailed enough for our purposes. Also, I would probably need to dedicate some time searching so that may have to wait a few days. --Polaron | Talk 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that the specific law setting out the system is 1955 chapter 748, if that helps. --NE2 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, the first article does not give any route numbers (even legislative) at all, and the last one doesn't mention Massachusetts. Anyway, I'll email all four articles to you in a few minutes. --Polaron | Talk 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Does [6] or [7] have anything about I-90 opening? --NE2 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's probably an error, since the Berkshire Thruway opened in 1959. --NE2 02:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. There's nothing in the two articles contradicting that the Berkshire Thruway has been in existence since 1959. --Polaron | Talk 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, never mind; I thought it said that one was under construction. It was probably functionally but not officially I-90, as I-687 needed somewhere to end, and as far as I know there were no other auxiliary routes in the area. --NE2 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. There's nothing in the two articles contradicting that the Berkshire Thruway has been in existence since 1959. --Polaron | Talk 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Norwalk motto
Doesn't the seal of the city of Norwalk have "E Pluribus Unum" right on it as the motto? The 'right time, and place' sounds like a chamber of commerce publicity creation. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
Volume 1, Issue 17 • December 15, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
East River Drive
Where in the interchange does the name change? The Willis Avenue Bridge exit is south of the Triborough Bridge overpass. --NE2 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I checked GIS data and the particular data set that I have access to seems to indicate that the name changes at southbound Exit 17 and northbound Exit 19. So, you are correct. I've always thought until now that the northbound exit was the boundary. I will undo my changes. --Polaron | Talk 23:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
NY 22 barnstar
![]() |
The Article Improvement Drive Barnstar: New York State Route 22 | |
Your contributions to New York State Route 22's history, has helped get the article to GA status. I thank you and WP:NYSR thanks you.Mitch32contribs 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC) |
Pomfret Connecticut
Rogers Connecticut is a neighborhood in Killingly. You misspelled "Elliotts." I wouldn't call them communities. They are more historical hamlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacasso32 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
US 1 in NY — thanks!
I was pleasantly surprised to get the computer back from my son and see that you had taken care of the intersection list after I did the route description. An unexpected minor Christmas gift! Thank you! Saved me some work and I can go on to other articles after I rewrite the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation
Hi, Polaron. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Polaron, sorry for mixing different sources for the life expectancy article. I've just realised that you are right about the CIA list being a "bit off" for the developing countries, and it is "off".
Thanks
Muzammil01 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Southbury
Polaron: I don't really care what order the Southbury article entries are in, but could you please post your rationale for moving them around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhamad (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- No rationale. it's just my preference. Feel free to revert it if for some reason you don't like the order. In any case, there is sort of a guideline at article structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline, although many city articles do not follow this to the letter in practice. --Polaron | Talk 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's fine, I was just looking to see if there was any logic - after writing the majority of that page, I was a bit confused when I logged in today. Thanks. Drhamad (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Very Upset
I am unsure if you live in Bristol, but I know I do. I repeatedly worked very hard to modify the Bristol, Connecticut page. Among my additions were:
Additional Little League information - I volunteer well over one-hundred hours at the A. Bartlett Giamatti Leadership Training Center every summer, and I found there to be inadequate information so I added what should really be seen be people trying to learn all about Bristol.
New Bristol Fire Department information - I recently did a project all summer long to get information about our great Fire Department onto the web. I did many interviews with city firemen and they said they would be checking by all the sites they know to see the outcome of my project. I also added a link to my very informative, very "encyclopedia-like" Wikipedia page.
New External Link about Bristol's Very Own Weather Forecast - I also added to the external links section. The link I added goes to my very own weather site that I work hard on. No, it is not any random or copied forecast, as I spend hours building my always-precise forecast and I thought it would be great for Bristol's citizens to check out. I even made sure I wasn't breaking any "rules," so I checked the Wikipedia reference page, "External Links"
"Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail..."
As you can see, none of this info is on the Bristol, Connecticut Wikipedia page. Every time I re-add it, you remove it. I am deeply upset over all the hard work I put into the page and it just "somehow" gets quickly removed. I would like this to stop before I take a step further. 71.234.87.109 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure I'll fix the photo with the red border. Thanks for the fixes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.87.109 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Urban areas
This template is not talking about MSA's. It's talking about urban areas. See the talk page on the template for further discussion. MojaveNC (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:USLargestMetros. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)