User:Zzyzx11/Archive20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	Archives 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34
Current time: Tuesday, November 19, 2024, 09:44 (UTC) Last edit: November 17, 2024, 12:09 (UTC) by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk · contribs)

Thank you...

...for your work in undoing the damage of the massive redirect deletion spree by MZMcBride. Kelly ^hi! 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am only doing the doc pages for now. There are too many to do all at once, and not enough time for one person. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries stray markup

Hello. Why do many of the selected anniversary pages (e.g., Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 8) have stray closing tags before the SelAnnivFooter template? On some pages it is </li>, while on others it is </div>. These aren't needed, are they? --- RockMFR 05:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be a </li>, and they are on all of them. They are needed because there is a formatting bug using {{*mp}} on some browsers in that it will not automatically display a newline seperating the last blurb and the "More events" line. This line is not enclosed in its own DIV tags like the "Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events..." footer on ITN or the "Archive – Start a new article..." footer on DYK. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:New England Patriots helmet rightface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:New England Patriots helmet rightface.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image was previously removed by vandalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Akron Indians"

A page you created, Akron Indians, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue resolved, see [1] and [2] Zzyzx11 (Talk) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

UC seal on the template

I wasn't happy about it either, but it seems to be kosher. See this thread, which continues here. --Dynaflow babble 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your last edits to {{University of California}} and Image:Uc seal black.png, just in the interests of keeping the whole fracas from starting again at 0. If you still think having the trademarked image in the template is a bad idea (as do I), let's discuss it at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California first. Replacing it may ultimately require a challenge to the current wording of NFCC, though. --Dynaflow babble 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on [3] and [4] , it appears that the UC is dictating some terms and conditions for the image that it might make it ineligible for free content. As such, WP:PUI would be the proper page to discuss this instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California. Then again I am not getting too paranoid over it. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the gist of my argument as well. However, there does seem to be a marked difference in how Wikipedia treats trademarks versus copyrighted works, and the UC seal's lack of copyright protection is not in doubt. Read through the two threads linked above, in which a goodly number of veteran users and admins weighed in and ultimately concluded that the seal is allowable in Template Space. It'll be worth your while. I do think this highlights a spot where NFCC is broken, or at least badly cracked, but the wider community will have to decide on it. This goes much further than one image on one template -- we're talking scads of transcluded images, uploads to Commons, etc. --Dynaflow babble 05:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a current discussion on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#non-copyrighted materials about whether trademarks should be included in the NFCC rules. Of course, there is a difference between a normal trademark and a registered, copyrighted trademark. For example, a company can use a particular logo as its trademark, but if it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship (such as merely printing its company name in Times Roman font), it cannot copyright or register it. Likewise with something that was never registered as a trademark or its copyright has expired without a renewal. I originally assumed that the UC seal was in fact still under copyright because [5] kept on using the phrase "fair use". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you did to Los Angeles County. You seem to be acting in vandalism, but clearly from this talk page, you need to rethink your approach. thanks Buddha24 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please enlighten me. The only edit I made to the Los Angeles County, California was to change {{County of Los Angeles}} to a collapsed state so it would also be consistent with the other navboxes on that page.[6] Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mars2025 MULTIPLE DELETIONS!

• I really am getting very annoyed and the fact you are deleting the page which IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAME. I have permission and have been instruction by the original authors of MARS2025 to RE-CREATE THIS PAGE. which has been removed prior to your deletion/creation war you have started.
• http://www.mars2025.net/Default.aspx

that shows u that the game is complete different to earth2025

• please explain to me why you are making it so hard to start a page that has MERIT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicellis (talk • contribs) 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, do I have to repeat the steps you need to do? This is to ensure and prove that you say you are, and you are not some sort of copyright violator. You are blatantly copying and pasting web pages. Please stop. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been given permission by the authors to re-create this page that has been deleted WITHOUT ANY LOGS! I have there permission to use all material used with the site. We will be sending a e-mail ASAP Medicellis (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stata.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stata.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned. Replaced by Image:Stata10 big.jpg. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your edits to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 23. It was fun seeing my edit make the main page on my birthday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgp688 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What edit are you referring to? According to your user contributions, you never made an edit to that page[7] or its corresponding talk page.[8] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I was at work and I forgot to log in. It was me though. --Pgp688 (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

{{infobox stadium}}

Hi,

Mandatory parameters are easy to enforce in {{infobox}} just by removing the pipe on the attribute name in question. Next time, please leave me a comment rather than just reverting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, coming from a user who still not fully or use all the features of {{infobox}}. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dallas Cowboys helmet rightface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dallas Cowboys helmet rightface.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image was previously removed from the article by vandalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dallas Cowboys helmet rightface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dallas Cowboys helmet rightface.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image was previously removed from the article by vandalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's POTD

Was there some logical reason you removed the emboldened article from today's POTD blurb?[9]

There's no need for rudeness. Obviously, I felt that there was a logical reason to de-embolden the link, or I wouldn't have done so. (See below.)

Why should this one NOT have one, while the others this month do?

Because we shouldn't include an emboldened link for the sake of having one.

It really does not help when you do not provide a clear explanation in the edit summary.

I apologize for failing to do so; I mistook the emboldened link for an oversight and thought that the reason for my removal (the fact that the article in question is about the opponent of the advertised candidate) was self-explanatory.

Currently, the image is primarily being used on the John W. Geary article, which is why that article is emboldened in the blurb. Hiester Clymer is also a possibility, but that page is currently a stub.

Emboldening Hiester Clymer makes more sense (despite the fact that it's a stub). But I don't think that emboldening either candidate's link is very appropriate, particularly given the fact that neither article contains much information about the election.

If we must have an emboldened link, we might as well select the racism article. The image relates more to the subject of racism than it does to anything documented in the aforementioned articles. But I don't see why we must have an emboldened link.

I do not know any other article, in the words of WP:POTD/G, "is best represented by the image". Do you have a suggestion?

Because no existent article is well represented by the image (though a hypothetical article about the campaign would be), I suggest that we have no emboldened link today. —David Levy 16:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've switched the emboldening to the racism link and added the image to the article. —David Levy 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. By the way, WP:POTD/G does in fact list two examples where it was difficult to find an article to emboldened: Template:POTD/2007-02-10 and Template:POTD/2007-01-06. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes

be consistent and go close all the boxes and change all the colors to the same! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.70 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What navboxes are you referring to? There are many on Wikipedia – about more than 100,000. If you are referring to all of them, that will take a while, you know. And in many cases, I would not be able to change them all anyway because that will go against the consensus of many groups of Wikipedians who maintain them (i.e. WikiProjects).

There are however those few boxes that no one maintains or cares about on a regular basis; those will be easy to change by just being bold.

There are also those boxes in which only one user maintains them, and I can also be bold and make an initial change – but if the user disagrees, and a full heated discussion happens on its talk page, a full edit war develops, and/or dispute resolution is needed, I may have to back off. Of course, there have in fact been a few cases I have been involved in where a user has completely quit the discussion in total frustration without actually debating with logical reasons why my edits and proposals should be reverted. Unfortunately, because of the nature of Wikipedia, edit wars are not uncommon and you do not own articles and templates. Hopefully, you aren't one of those people, and trying to hide behind an anonymous IP address leaving cryptic messages on my talk page instead of being more tolerant to the nature of Wikipedia, right? If you are, please either embrace both the good and the bad of Wikipedia or please do not waste your time editing here. Good luck on whatever you decide. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

---

So what was these comments:

-- Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you did to Los Angeles County. You seem to be acting in vandalism, but clearly from this talk page, you need to rethink your approach. thanks Buddha24 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

--I really am getting very annoyed and the fact you are deleting the page which ...

When someone created something, it is best to let others have a chance with the design. Unless it is wrong or has errors, it should not be changed. Consistency does not mean to be bold. To be bold means allowing others to design and create. If in 1969, they were consitent, the internet would not have been born when they sent that first message over the telephone line from one computer to another computer. 206.170.104.63 (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked this user to clarify that "but clearly from this talk page, you need to rethink your approach" comment because at the time there was no discussion on my talk page relating to Los Angeles County articles.[10]. And the only thing close template-wise is the #UC seal on the template discussion above where I questioned whether the UC seal was a fair use image, and whether WP:NFCC rule #9 applies on the template. Then I assumed in good faith that this user "misfired" intending for his message for someone else.[11] He never gave me a response, and the discussion was archived.[12] Therefore, I (and most likely you) still do not know for sure whether he objected to my edit, or whether he did intend for that message for something else. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia's definition of being bold, as posted on Wikipedia:Be bold, clearly states If you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do it yourself. Can you point to me (either on that page or another Wikipedia policy or guideline) where it says "it is best to let others have a chance with the design" or "Unless it is wrong or has errors, it should not be changed"? I would like to know.

What I do see is the phrase, "any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further." I mean, if those pages and templates are really, really important to you, I would prefer not to go into an edit war involving color and layout like the ones posted on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Baltimore Ravens helmet rightface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Baltimore Ravens helmet rightface.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image was previously removed by vandalism Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Beach and Rosemead Blvds.

Do SR 39/19 have a control city?I've cross those on SR 22; 60; I-405; 5 Frwys and I didn't pay much attention; or I forgot. i know SR 39 goes to Huntington Beach; it says SR 39 South to Huntington Beach crossing I-405 Frwy. Rosemead Blvd. I'm not clear about control city. i guess south is Long Beach; north is Pasadena if it have one. SR 22 is Long Beach west; and Orange east.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In my observations both in Northern and Southern California, CalTrans poorly signs control cities on many urban state routes, especially in the Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco Bay Areas – listing only the name of the street.[13][14] If you do not know, it is probably best to leave it blank IMO. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

SR 57 Orange Frwy

Does SR 57 Orange Frwy have heavily traffic congestion? i know certainly I-405; US-101 has alot of heavily traffic congestions, I wonder if SR 57 Frwy have constant traffic congestion. Some people say it does.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 03:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that every freeway in California has some sort of heavy traffic congestion. It is best to have a cited source like the Interstate 405 (California) article does in its first paragraph. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

400th anniversary of Québec City

I noticed you altered the list of events that could appear on the Main Page's "On This Day". And only 3 days before! Not much chance they were ever going to get the page cleaned up in time to be used. Then again, that might have been the plan.

The 400th anniversary of anything sure doesn't happen very often, but you made sure that Québec City's 400th wouldn't be on the Main Page. There are reams of information about the history of ville de Québec. It would have been an excellent start for those wanting to know more about the city. And then there is there was the perfectly acceptable article about Samuel de Champlain, who founded Québec City.

If you are looking for perfection you should already know you will not find in in the Wikipedia pages. The articles are just too fluid in nature. Instead we got two dates of the Americans at war!
CubBC (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. I forgot about the Samuel de Champlain article. I was updating the page in a hurry due to my busy schedule that day (I normally update them in advance before they appear on Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. And I forgot about it later on when I was adding backups to the list. I have corrected myself[15] And next time, please assume good faith and read Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it? before accusing me of trying to remove it on purpose. I do in fact prefer decennary, semicentennial, and centennial anniversaries – and I am upset with myself for my error. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cleveland Browns Dawg.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cleveland Browns Dawg.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image has been replaced by Image:Cleveland Browns alternate.svg. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ArizonaCardinals.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ArizonaCardinals.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image has been replaced by Image:Arizona Cardinals logo.svg. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SanDiegoChargers.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SanDiegoChargers.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image has been replaced by Image:San Diego Chargers logo.svg. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TampaBayBuccaneersOld.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:TampaBayBuccaneersOld.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image has been replaced by Image:Tampa Bay Buccaneers logo old.svg. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I-710 Long Beach Frwy extension

I thoguht I-710 ends at Valley Blvd. in Alhambra. Building a tunnel may not work, in fact the I-710 may never even be extend, because of the strong opposition with Pasadena. I have been on the I-605 handfuls of times; and traffic on it is quite fair, because its a little away from major cities. The EPA keep denying the I-710 extension ever since the 1960s, a continuos topic for over 40 years. I thgouth the I-710 is unlikely to ever be extend at all even if our economic is good. --Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically you are wrong about the terminus at Valley Blvd. Under the California Streets and Highway code, the freeway segment in Pasadena between California Blvd and the 134/210 interchange is part of Route 710. In other words, it is still considered the same route, even though that part is marked as a state route, while the Long Beach Freeway from Valley Blvd to Long Beach is marked as an Interstate. You did notice that the California State Route 710 page currently is a redirect to the Interstate 710 article, right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• The CSC code is only for if Caltrans want to maintain the route, but they don't have to. The alignment do not need to be built. Orange Frwy-SR 57 is mark from SR 1 to I-210; that doesn't mean alignment from SR 1 to Orange Crush Interchange needs to be development, and the alignment seems to never be built, same as i-605 CSC code mark it from SR 1 to i-210. However the align from SR 1 to I-405 is undevelop, and mau never been develop. Those commands both SR 57 and I-605 was left for a long time, ever snce the 1960s' when they originally propose to make Cast Highway a coast Freeway. SR 241 South extension from i-5 south of San Clemente to Oso Pkwy near Rancho Santa Margarita; we don't even know if we will ever build it or not. The EPA tries to stop it because it destroys natural habitat, luckily it does not go thrigh house.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

California templates

I see you adding the helpful footnotes so that Acntx doesn't have to do it for California :-) Thanks. Two questions:

• Do you think the other counties should have their maps changed?
• Are there other communities statewide in multiple counties, or are those the only ones?

Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• AFAIK, those are the only ones communities in California that are in multiple counties.
• Which maps are you talking about? All the California templates currently have the "Map of California highlighting X County.svg" images, similar to all the other U.S. county templates. Although, I still think the size of the images could be modified per each state, like it appears someone tried to mention here regarding a revert made by you.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ouellet_approaches_to_sign_the_Constitution.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ouellet_approaches_to_sign_the_Constitution.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I-710 extensions

Will I-710 ever been extned? I don't think so because it eliminate and destroys alot of residential areas, and it cause increase levels of carbon monoxide levels. Orange County travelers do not need the I-710 extension because they have alot of alternative routes they can take like Rosemead (SR 19) Blvd., I-605 Frwy, SR 57 Frwy, and SR-110 Frwy. To me the I-710 extensions seems unlikely, and the CSC codes is only for if they want to maintain routes; but its not mandatory. Caltrans can built it if they want but they don't have to. For example Rte 57 (Orange Frwy) is amrk from SR 1 to I-210; and the part of SR 1 to Orange Crush is still unbuilt, and it is 99% chance to not ever been built. This was plan originally so they want to make Coast Highway a Coast Frwy, same as i-605 CSC code mark it from SR 1 to I-210; but the section from SR 1 to I-405 is still unbuilt and may never been built.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. If you wish to discuss about improving the I-710 article, you are welcome to post here on my talk page, but I am not particularly interested in your personal opinions or speculations on what CalTrans might or might not do. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to know if the I-710 will ever be extend. Because I doubt it.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why the main page proposal is on WP:VPT

I'd rather reply to you here than at the village pump because I don't want anyone to take this comment as an insult. I didn't post to WP:VPR for two reasons. First, proposals on WP:VPR tend to be created by new editors and go nowhere. Second, you need some technical background to understand the actual implications of moving the Main Page to a different namespace. In my experience, nontechnical people tend to distrust things they don't understand, making them seem more fearful than they really are.

That said, it wouldn't be a bad idea to post a notice at WP:VPR pointing people to the discussion. In fact, I think I'll go do that right now. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. However, my only concern, as of now, IMO is that not leaving any answer directly below my post on WP:VPT also can be viewed as some sort of insult, since it would appear to those participating in that discussion (and not knowing that you posted here) that my legitimate question was ignored. I am not sure how to address that issue. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Better now? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cleveland Browns helmet leftface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cleveland Browns helmet leftface.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned; I cannot think of a good reason to keep it under WP:NFCC rule #8. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries

Zzyzx,

You point me to WP:PERFORM, WP:R2D and Object-oriented programming saying "less code here, the better".

Generally, yes, I agree that "less code" = "better" but this is mainly due to the fact that less code is typically simpler code and simpler code is usually better ... but not always.

"Don't worry about performance", I'm not. It's something else that I was worried about.

"Do not 'fix' links to redirects that are not broken", again, I'm not. I replaced a number of templates with another. None of those reasons not to change redirects seem to apply here. What am I missing?

"Object-oriented programming", an interesting article, thanks. I'm not quite sure how OOP applies to this situation nor why it should be applied ... but I'm no computer programmer.

What's concerning me is the way that the WP template space is cluttered up with redundancy. I was aiming at a bit of a tidy-up of Category:Date mathematics templates.

There are a number of hardcoded instances of {{weekday in month}} in this category such as {{First Monday in September}}. These could be replaced with the one template.

What's better for the user? Well, we've got {{First Sunday in November}} and the template mentioned above, so you might expect {{First Friday in June}} ... and you'd be out of luck. How about {{First Sunday in April}}? Oh, that's lower case: {{First sunday in april}}.

Suppose we had first, second, third, fourth and last Sunday, Monday, ... Saturday in January, ... December. That'd be 420 templates when one will do.

JIMp _talk·cont 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, it was a poor edit summary, made when I was a tired and not thinking straight. Now that you have explained your intentions (thank you for that), and told me you are not familiar with OOP, I will explain what I was thinking at the time:

My assumption was that {{weekday in month}} was created as a meta-template to {{First Monday in September}}, etc. Then what I thought you were basically doing was carrying out the philosophy in WP:AUM by changing the SA pages so that it would call or link to {{weekday in month}} directly instead of keeping the redirects or the {{First Monday in September}}, etc. template calls. And as you may or may or may not know, WP:AUM was rejected by the community based on WP:PERFORM and the idea behind WP:R2D.

Of course, the basic idea of meta-templates is based on the ideas of OOP, specifically with inheritance and classes. A meta-template like {{weekday in month}} is like a base or super class in OOP while {{First Monday in September}} is like a derived class that inherits the properties of {{weekday in month}}.

For a user unfamiliar with the complexities of templates (and I have encounter experienced users who are still novices with templates), it is much easier to call and use a basic {{First Monday in September}} tag because the user does not have to deal with any parameters like when calling the meta-template {{weekday in month}} directly. It is an "independent little machine with a distinct role or responsibility" – a specialization of the existing meta-template – namely to directly display the first Monday in September.

But hey, if you feel that is is more important that users have to deal with the extra code and parameters than create/use a simple shortcut template tag; that newbie users will never figure out how to create a {{First Friday in June}} or 400+ similar templates (including asking questions on such pages as WP:RT, or having another more a experienced user help clean up their mess); that it more important to have Category:Date mathematics templates as little as possible, I will not stand in your way. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, on the SA pages, the templates in question are being used as part of a comparison in an Parserfunction. So the question is: does a line like

{{#ifeq:15|{{weekday in month|third|sunday|june|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}|'''[[Father's Day]]''' in several countries ([[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]])}}

more easier to understand and maintain than

{{#ifeq:15|{{Third Sunday in June|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}|'''[[Father's Day]]''' in several countries ([[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]])}}

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AUM seems to me a product of editors more interested in writing rules than in writing templates. The use of metatemplates I find to be an indispensable part of template writing, not something to be avoided. Thanks for your explanation of the connexion with OOP. With respect to the two lines above, whilst the second may be easier to understand, perhaps the first would turn out to be easier to maintain—one template verses several. But how about something like this?

{{#ifeq:{{weekday|15|june|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}|Sunday|'''[[Father's Day]]''' in several countries ([[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]])}}

"If the 15th of June is a Sunday, ..." verses "If the 15th is the third Sunday in June, ..." JIMp _talk·cont 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its probably better. Ultimately, I personally do not care either way as long it is both understandable and easier to maintain. I have been editing Wikipedia before parserfunctions were ever created, and we had to change all of those things manually. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 5

Apologies for the late delivery; here is the June edition of the newsletter.

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. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Splat5572 continue messing up exit lists

Splat5572 continue to mess up exit lists on Interstate 5 in California, Interstate 80 in California, U.S. Route 101 in California (which has gone through many changes and undos) by putting exit list samples from Santa Ana, Golden State, Hollywood, Ventura, Bayshore, Central, and Eastshore Freeways. The exit lists definitely need to show up on those smaller pages, and the junction lists on infobox should only incorporate most major junctions or large cities. most of time, we should only have about 4 to 6 junctions, although the limit is 6 to 10. most of time the junction lists on infobox should be no more than half of the junctions on intersection tables or exit lists. I-5, I-80, and US 101 articles is at least 40 KB long, so this is list on boss page link to smaller pages which splits exit lists.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 16:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Those pages have gone thrugh many undos, and changes. Splt5572 keeps messing up by putting too much details which staifies mapquest only.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 19:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you respond to me quickly? Splat5572 has been warring over me, and all because of him I screw up the tables on I-5 and US 101.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I am biased, I am not allowed to interfere. I posted a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but that is all I will do. Please find a non-biased admin. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Washington Redskins helmet rightface.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Washington Redskins helmet rightface.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image was previously removed by vandalism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)