Imzadi1979

Welcome to the talk page of

Imzadi1979

---

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page.

Please start a new talk page thread either by clicking the New section link above or using the box below. This will make sure that the edit summary that appears on watchlists accurately shows your edit as a new topic, and not related to another topic. Thank you.

"Imzadi1979 (public)" is an alternate account for use on public computers.

    Post a message to my talk page    

Archives
Threads older than seven days after the last reply will be archived. Thank you.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

• In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"

• Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus

• Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics

• Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing

• News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?

• Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia?

• Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors

• Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a heads-up.

I think I corrected most of it??? Maybe not. I don't know. Cfeddse (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cfeddse: please stop removing former interchanges from the exit list. As for other interchanges that may be missing, please make a note of them on the article's talk page. As for the rest of your edits today, I'll take a look later. (I'm just on a lunch break at the moment.) What I saw has issues. Please proofread your edits for spelling and grammatical errors. You don't have to be perfect on the first edit, but if you find something, you should be fixing it. Otherwise, you are making more work for someone else to eventually fix. Imzadi 1979 → 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I fixed most of them though. yes there are still some, as well as bare urls, but I was gonna fix the latter by using refill. Also, shouldn't the article cover the Northeast Extension? That was built as part of the New Jersey stretch in the early to mid 1950s. Cfeddse (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cfeddse: there's already Interstate 476 to cover the Northeast Extension.

I've once again reverted your edits. I found a dozen spelling errors and other issues in a single paragraph. I'm afraid that the effort to clean up after you exceeds the benefits we may be gaining from your work. The attempt to spell check the last revision crashed the spell checker in my browser twice. That was several minutes of my time lost. That's before I could try to tag other issues in the revision of the article. Perhaps a blanket reversion like that is a bit harsh, but I don't think so in this case.

In addition, you added opinions into the article in Wikipedia's voice, a violation of WP:NPOV, a core policy. You added a citation for that opinion but did not attribute that opinion to the source. Additionally, that source is self-published, which is another problem.

I would strongly suggest that you find simpler articles to edit and to make smaller edits. Trying to add 11K of text to an article takes some skill and finesse. I don't think that you have that skill at this time.

Lastly, some of these issues are reminiscent of another editor who has had his account blocked from editing. That editor has created new accounts to evade that block, which is a violation of policy. If you are that same person, continuing down this path will likely prompt someone to request a check at WP:SPI. If that investigation returns a positive result, your account will be blocked as well. If not, then it's just an interesting coincidence. Consider this a strong warning either way to stop your current pattern of editing. Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant substandard as in nonstandard,because they were of a nonstandard design. That is hardly NPOV. Cfeddse (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cfeddse: no, you added this opinion: "However, this proved a bad choice". Bad to whom? "Bad" is an opinion, and opinions have to be attributed to the person who holds it and not stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Yes, you cited that statement, but you did not state who said the choice was bad. That citation is to a self-published source (SPS). SPSs aren't generally acceptable for our use, doubly so for opinions. Then when I read through the source, it doesn't say that the choice was bad. It says that the state's "attorney general convinced the governor that it would be in the best interest of the state if there was a speed limit on the Turnpike, and a week before the highway opened, it was announced that a 50 MPH limit would be imposed." That does not track with what you wrote at all, meaning we have an issue of source–text integrity as well.

All in all, you've got some bad editing practices and a lack of spelling skill. You're trying to make large edits to an article that exceed your skills. Let me reiterate yet again that you need to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run. You're trying to run with this article, and it's not working. Imzadi 1979 → 15:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

I'm thinking of creating an Interstate 24 state-level article, but I'm not sure what the section in Tennessee and Georgia should be called. Should I just call it Interstate 24 in Tennessee, or Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Georgia? Let me know your thoughts and I'll respond back ASAP. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh: I think we determined that for now that I-24 didn't warrant splitting into sub articles. U.S. Route 8 doesn't have separate articles because the section in Minnesota is an order of magnitude longer than the section in Michigan, and the section in Wisconsin is another order of magnitude longer than the one in Minnesota. (We're talking ~2 mi., ~ 20 mi., ~200 mi., respectively.) I think the situation is similar enough with I-24 that we don't need to split it up on state lines because so much of it is in Tennessee. You'd have to deal with that short segment in Georgia to compound the awkwardness. The Tennessee segment is over half of the highway, and it's twice the length of the next longest state segment in Kentucky. So basically the parent article and a potential Tennessee article are going to be mostly the same as each other. Additionally, the current article covers the topic well without exceeding the usual measures under WP:SIZE for splitting. I don't see what we would gain except making five articles on a topic when one covers it appropriately now. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm not convinced that we needed to split up Interstate 59. The reason we create state-detail articles is that with something like Interstate 75 or U.S. Route 2, there's just so much to cover that it isn't feasible to do so in a single article. A single junction list table for those long highways wouldn't be possible for a variety of reasons.

While we have an informal "three-state" rule, that rule should never be read to require splitting if a highway runs through three states. Rather, it's a minimum requirement to consider a split. Just because I-24 and I-59 hit four states each, that does not mean that we are required to split out articles. I'd be tempted to say that I-59 should be merged back together. (I-59 isn't even that much longer than Interstate 75 in Michigan.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been looking at the Interstate 78 articles, and what about that? I-78 is a lot shorter than I-59. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)