Jump to content

User talk:Viridiscalculus/Archives/2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your GA nomination of Interstate 97

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Interstate 97 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Interstate 97

The article Interstate 97 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Interstate 97 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 97 has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Viridiscalculus. Interstate 97, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 23:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Interstate 97

On 20 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Interstate 97, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Interstate 97 is the shortest 2-digit mainline Interstate and only intracounty 2-digit Interstate in the contiguous United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Interstate 97. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Interstate 97), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

WormTT(talk) 21:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New England road marking system, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Interstate 84, St. Albans, Vermont and Rutland, Vermont. 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) 11:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New England road marking system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barre, Vermont. 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) 09:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Honorary overlay name, not primary name

I see you've done laudable highway work on WP for many years and are a fellow Marylander. While I disagree with your labeling MD Rt. 794 (where I live) as only "Southern Maryland Boulevard" when it acts as a service road to the adjacent MD Rt 4, you are technically correct.... all six lanes are "Southern Maryland Boulevard." And your rewrite of the lead for Rt 4 is fine. What is not acceptable to local residents (like me who live here, and like the local county employees who use proper road names for directing folks to their facilities (I've talked to the director of the adjacent Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary about this very topic) is your repeated efforts to replace the correct and primary Rt. 4 names (S. MD Blvd. SE of MD 408, PA Ave. NW of it) with "Stephanie Roper Highway." That latter designation is an honorary overlay name as per those on many other highways (many of which you edit, I'm sure) with overlay names for policeman, politicians, etc., usually deceased, as with Stephanie (who lived a few miles away from me.) However, the legal and primary name is not 2012's "Stephanie Roper Highway", and numerous sources (county govt. tax maps, co. govt. land records, US postal service addresses, etc.) confirm this and override Google Maps as a reliable and legitimate WP source... and outnumber "Stephanie Roper Highway" sources 10 to 1. I'm reverting back to listing "Stephanie Roper" as an honorary name and maintaining the other names as per local usage and the aforementioned authoritative usage, and hope that you can agree to that. Keep up the good road editing!DLinth (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

My sources for MD 4 being Stephanie Roper Highway between MD 258 and MD 717 are the Maryland Highway Location Reference documents and the Maryland grid maps, which are sources published by the Maryland State Highway Administration and used in all Maryland state highway articles. Unlike honorary overlays like those for police officers and politicians, including the dedication to John A. Cade I mention and source in the article Interstate 97, Stephanie Roper Highway is the actual name of the highway in those sources. The 2012 HLR documents for Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, which I will be happy to add as supporting sources, state the particular portions of MD 4 changed to Stephanie Roper Highway in 2012.
As for your sources, you are not helping your cause by not citing them in the article. In Wikipedia, you are required to cite sources for information that is controversial, is an opinion, or is likely to be challenged. Otherwise, that information is liable to be removed. I have cited sources for the portion of MD 4 between MD 258 and MD 717 being Stephanie Roper Highway. I recognize that it is difficult to prove a negative, but you are not trying hard enough. Where are the citations to these authoritative sources that override Google Maps 10 to 1 as reliable sources? (I recognize Google Maps is often not a reliable source, which is why I replaced the Google Map citation in my recent rewrite of the MD 4 article.) Where are your citations to county government tax maps, county government land records, U.S. Postal Service addresses, databases, and "other maps"? Where are your citations to reliable sources, such as newspaper articles, that state that the locals of Waysons Corner and Upper Marlboro refuse to use the name Stephanie Roper Highway and who are upset that a Wikipedia editor is using a name for a highway they disagree with or do not think exists?
I know where these sources are: They do not exist. I dare you to prove me wrong. Otherwise, please quit wasting my time and just revert your reverts.  VC  01:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
So, let's see... The green and white street signs still say "Southern Maryland Boulevard" (at Plummer Lane, for ex.), four years after this additional name, and yet you pull out the old "100% of the local usage is irrelevant" adage. SHA street signs are not local usage, but official. And "local usage" is a WP "prime directive." But we (and another editor as well) are just "wasting your valuable time", because you, Viridiscalculus, know better than the SHA signs and local usage and post office and legal property records. Well, your apparent inability (above paragraph) to deny that easily accessible government records "don't even exist" as you say above. That's stunningly parochial. In the state in which you live, Maryland, county property records (Maryland has a statewide GIS-syste called "Merlin" that makes that easy) or addresses for businesses (a dozen of which there, where I live, use "S. MD Blvd.", not "Steph. Roper") is stunning. Yet without "wasting your valuable time" to even check records like that (or Street View to look at the street signs), you stubbornly refuse to even list both names. Stunningly intellectually narrow-minded on your part. I live here, work with govt. officials at the largest govt. facility (which hasn't used "Roper" once in four years, despite providing directions including that part of Rt. 4 to their facility in over 100 documents...Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary. On their website they identify "Patuxent Wetland Park" in Waysons as on S. MD Blvd. and provide the street number with the address. Yet somehow "your" govt. "reference documents and maps" are better than the large majority that you've ignored that use "S. MD Blvd."
You're obsession with creating one WP page after another devoted to a service road in this part of MD or a "collection of service roads" Maryland Route 980 in another falls pathetically short of the WP standard of significance for a full article. Yet we're "wasting your valuable time." I'll get busy nominating those for speedy deletion.DLinth (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@DLinth: So much for getting busy nominating MD 980 for speedy deletion. It seems to be the same amount of effort as you took to create citations to support your contention that Stephanie Roper Highway is not the official street name for MD 4 from Bristol to Upper Marlboro. I intend to add an additional source supporting the 2012 name change soon, and if you cannot cite reliable sources, I am going to revert your unsupported edits in the affected articles.  VC  03:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll be looking forward to you coming out to the corner of Plummer Lane and Southern Maryland Blvd. (as per the official highway sign) and taping over the "S. Maryland Blvd." part of the sign with masking tape so that it fits your imaginary view of the world that you're imposing on us in your WP articles. Or perhaps you won't have enough time... there's always WP articles in 49 other states that you should be creating just like you did for MD for each and every service road and highway ramp.DLinth (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 July

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

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) 00:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maryland Route 282, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elk River. 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) 10:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixing the missing reference list?

I agree with your reversion of my edit on List of former Maryland state highways (700–999). I was trying to fix the missing reference error that's coming up on the bottom, but this article is a weird one. The list looks like it's already there in the text, but it's not registering for some reason? Any idea how to fix it? SilverserenC 23:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue was a copy and paste error. The editor copied and pasted a reference from the MD 878 section to the MD 880 section he created, but he did not change the group parameter to MD 880. I also fixed another reference issue in the MD 880 section. Thank you for drawing my attention to it.  VC  23:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you could help me with another issue? I'm currently working through Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and I am on K. Kumar on the list, but...I don't see any ref errors anywhere in the article. What am I missing? SilverserenC 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Viridiscalculus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viridiscalculus/Archives/2016&oldid=1140573728"