Washuotaku

Archives

2007 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

January 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dan Hornbuckle. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Multiple editors have not only reverted you, but explained, in detail, why your edits violate policy. You are going against both consensus and policy. Attitudes like this seriously raise the question about whether you are willing to learn how to work by WP:CONSENSUS. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you must respect consensus and policy or your ability to edit here will be removed. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your massive removal of "Cherokee" from the pages of Cherokee people is vandalism on a seriously disruptive scale, and your marking of all these edits as "minor" is deceptive. This is a continuation of the problems for which you were given a final warning above. I strongly suggest you stop this attack on Cherokee articles. One more disruption like this and you're blocked. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I disagree with this warning because the edits I recently made were from previous edits that I originally made and was simply revising them in accordance to WP:INFONAT. They were marked minor because they had no bearing to the article at all, again see WP:INFONAT. And while I have noticed another editor has reversed my edits back to my original edits, I do not plan to revert back as that would break the warning from the first comment in regards to the subject. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with Osley Bird Saunooke

Here is some information that may be helpful in building your article.

Cherokee Americans: The Eastern Band of Cherokees in the Twentieth Century by John R. Finger

Native Americans in Sports by C. Richard King

Wampum: How Indian Tribes, the Mafia, and an Inattentive Congress Invented Indian Gaming and Created a $28 Billion Gambling Empire by Donald Mitchell

https://blogs.lib.unc.edu/morton/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2010/01/Denson-essay.pdf

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/392509

https://www.proquest.com/openview/c37372902465cee7fec3b3fdfcfa9795/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

https://www.proquest.com/openview/9b39dac77202d852b42ee182cd719116/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1185121

I hope my willingness to assist you shows that I am not trying to 'assassinate your character', I simply have more experience in a realm that you do not, just as I am sure you have far more experience in realms that I do not. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC) .

Redundant Cat

Why did you make this new category? Catawba Nation People? There is only one Catawba Nation, and people who aren't enrolled are not considered Catawba People. So it's redundant with the Category Catawba People. There's also a sub-cat for descendants, so there's already a way to distinguish between citizens and those who just have heritage. I'm tempted to just delete and revert all of this. Why are you doing this? Stop and discuss before proceeding any further. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

OK... As I'm looking at how this all configures on The main category page. I am seeing your rationale here. I would like to get more input from those at the wikiproject before proceeding with reorganizing the cats this way, however, even if we do decide it's an improvement. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I apparently cannot help myself in frustrating you this week, but please be assured my attempt here was not to antagonize you. The original idea was sort of mimic of how the Cherokee were setup, that some of the Catawba were not directly part of the current Catawba Nation or splinter off. However, through the course of the day and finding additional documentation I have come to the conclusion that my original hypothesis flawed and I apologize for being bold in the category setup. I will make the corrections and submit the cat for speedy delete. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I admit past events made me initially assume the worst. But looking at how it all lays out... you might be on to something. I have long been uncomfortable with cats putting descendants - even confirmed ones - as a subcat of the tribe, implying they're tribal members even though they aren't citizens. My initial reaction was out of concern that this would reinforce that misconception. But I'm open to the idea it might be a move towards clarification. I think we need more input. If folks at the wikiproject don't like it I can delete it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It was an attempt to break-out of who are citizens of the Catawba Nation from those that are not. However, what I came to realize the historical chiefs were all part of the same history and no real separation, unlike the Cherokee where there was a clear break from past and present nations, the need for the break-out became less necessary... it could still work, but it did feel more redundant. It appears to be better suited for larger nations than small ones, where additional clarifications would certainly help. If you do decide to bring it up to the group, don't mention me or it could turned-down without serious thought. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

AASHO/AASHTO minutes

Thank you for your work in adding more decisions into the master chart at WP:USRD/AASHTO. It is much appreciated. It also gives me some push to add more transcriptions over on Wikisource.

To the best of my abilities, I did get all of the reports/minutes uploaded to Commons. If you take a look at commons:Category:Minutes from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, there are documents back to 1927 uploaded. So in theory, we could extend that chart back three more decades as we have time and energy. If necessary, we can/should split documents, say if the Spring and Annual were combine in one scanned document even though they're separate reports. Splitting them would make it easier to cite things. Splitting them also simplifies the work to add them to wikisource:Portal:American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

My goal has always been to:

• Have scanned copies of the documents available on Commons, or archived links through Archive.org for the items we can't host due to copyright issues;
• List all of the decisions in one central spot for reference and research;
• Transcribe the documents on Commons to Wikisource so that the content can be shared and reused more easily; and
• Have a citation template to simplify citing the documents consistently (Template:AASHTO minutes), linking to either the transcription (if Validated on Wikisource), or the original scan (better than nothing).

Any help on these goals is appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 18:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed all the scanned documents and I actually created a page today for the 1920s. Yea, I noticed some of the documents will need to be further broken-up. I will continue to update the information as long I have motivation and time availability to do so. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

A thank you :)

Hi there, I recently made an edit on the article The Anime Man updating Education. However, I was unaware what "Education" field in the Biography is specifically for. Thank you for reverting my edit and explaining the reason. Again, we always learn something new each day, and now I know what's the field for. Again, thank you and thank you for your contributions for improving Wikipedia. Have a really good day & stay safe! :) orangefeliscatus (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Learning new things is always fun. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 42/US 70 North Carolina

Did you hear about 2 segments of US 70 in North Carolina get approved to be designated as Interstate 42. They haven't officially dedicated it yet. Cwater1 (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, currently discussing it on Talk:U.S. Route 70 Bypass (Goldsboro, North Carolina). -- WashuOtaku (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That is good news in my opinion. Cwater1 (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of bicycle routes in Tennessee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of bicycle routes in Tennessee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bicycle routes in Tennessee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mdewman6 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Washuotaku

Thank you for creating G.K. Butterfield Transportation Center.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Confederate Memorial Day

This burner account made two POV changes in wording in January and no one noticed. I changed the wording back to what it was, as they didn't provide a source or even an edit summary. If you disagree, I would recommend starting a talk page discussion rather than just a straight revert. Wes sideman (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I typically strive for a more neutral tone, but I'm not ignorant to the fact it was a rebellion. I'm fine with the revert after explanation. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Wes sideman (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You're now trying to whitewash history. You're removing information sourced to reliable sources. Can you explain that? Wes sideman (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing, you are simply ignoring the parameters written in the article by skipping discussion. Remember, Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view WP:NEUTRAL and if you want to change the tone of the article this very much needs to be discussed by all interested parties. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You wrote those parameters yourself! If you want me to go through the process of an RfC which will ultimately end in the sourced material being re-added after you deleted it, fine. We can go through that. But you already know how it will turn out, because you know you're removing sourced info for no reason other than IDONTLIKEIT. Wes sideman (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do not make such childish comments on my talk page. I am taking your edits very seriously here and if the neutrality of the article is being challenged then it needs to be discussed and reviewed by all interested parties. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You tried to delete the addition of "Lost Cause" in the See Also section, with some very sketchy reasoning, and other editors weighed in and corrected you. Literally not one editor has agreed with you on that. So how do you think it's going to go when you try to justify the removal of sourced information that explains the real motivations behind the holiday? Calling me childish isn't going to help your cause any. I'm taking your whitewashing very seriously, and I can promise that I know how this will turn out. That is not at all a threat, as I don't wish to see any punitive action against you; it's just my observation of obvious facts. Wes sideman (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You are borderline on the personal attacks (WP:PA). Please discontinue your nonconstructive comments and justify your edit changes here. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You literally called me "childish" in this thread and you're accusing me of personal attacks? Excuse me if I laugh quietly. Wes sideman (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:CDawgVA-YouTube.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CDawgVA-YouTube.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Gave a response. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Washuotaku

Thank you for creating Bradley Station.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! Do you live in NC?

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Yep. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

File:CDawgVA-YouTube.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CDawgVA-YouTube.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are you removing the Anime Man photo?

Why do you keep getting rid of the image I used for the anime man Wikipedia page? It was from his spicy ramen challenge video. I believe you are aware that he has made a video talking about his wikipedia page and he said that he would like there to be a picture. That was about 6 months ago. If you believe this is against some sort of copyright law you are wrong. Tell me why you keep getting rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullify03 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If I don't remove the image, another editor will and the reason this keeps happening is because the image you are trying to use is copyrighted. Wikipedia has stricter rules when using images, they must either be copyright free or have Creative Commons license; please refer to the Help section of Wikimedia Commons for details. I too want to see an image for Joey, but ripping an image from a video or from someplace from the internet isn't going to be allowed here. I encourage you, if you can, to either get permission from Joey before the image is deleted on Wikimedia Commons, or upload an image that can be copyright free or has CC license (personal photos work, they are your works, if you got one of Joey). Best of luck! --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not entirely true that only copyleft or no-copyright images can be used. Some images are used in Wikipedia (but not Commons) with a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. -- Beland (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You are correct and I have done that with a couple of articles; but had a couple where even after explanation they were removed. That said, as of last week we finally got an image in Commons that was acceptable, so the article now has a picture (Thank goodness). --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Dedicated Durham Freeway article

Hello! I've noted your participation in the split discussion that I held for Triangle Expressway, so I was also curious about your opinion on the necessity of a dedicated Durham Freeway article. I've recently helped edit the User:Roadsguy/Durham Freeway draft, but I basically copied most of the information on there from the Interstate 885 and North Carolina Highway 147 articles. If a new page were to be created, I'd believe that the draft should be massively reworked and expanded before it is published. Thanks! OrdinaryJosh (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Please respond to what I wrote on history

I explained the meaning and relevance of history with respect to Charlotte, NC.

Yet you deleted it, without response to what I wrote.

I took great care to explain this, with copious data. And with careful attention to Charlotte. Yet, no dignity of a response. Just this: "You are not adding the paragraph in the History section of the article, you are adding it in the current Transportation section. I already explained this was not the appropriate location for this information and you have alternative options available." Again, please engage with what I have illustrated about the value of history. Dogru144 (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I do see that you are alright with this appearing on the History section of Charlotte.Dogru144 (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 585 - why did you revert my valid edit?

The revert you did on my edit in Interstate 585 once again makes for having two “offical northern terminus” listings (but no official southern terminus), one under exit 25 and the other under exit 23. Obviously, there can not be two northern terminus entries, and I made sure my edit was valid before publishing. Did you check it? I am going to undo your revert and please do not revert my edit which is valid. Check sources before you do anything like this in the future. —-SkipperRipper (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Official names for cities

Please stop removing the official names from pages that use Infobox Settlement, both two categories can exist in the same page. The use of an official name is to show what the town or city calls itself either on the Seal, logo, etc. There are many examples of pages that use it (Cincinnati, Seattle, and Example two shown in Template:Infobox Settlement. Thank you and have a good day. DiscoA340 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Vast majority of municipality articles do not include those and several had no justification like the unincorporated communities. I would like you to provide more than a couple of cherry-pick examples that this is standardized, bring in other editors. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The use of official names can vary between pages but if an example is shown on the help page of the Infobox Settlement Template, then it can be used. Some other pages that use the same wording are Los Angeles County, California (Most of the county pages in CA use it), Detroit, Boston, and Chicago. On the official website of Durham, NC, it also uses the wording of "City of Durham", along with Wilmington, and NYC. You are right about the unincorporated communities edits, those were a bit of a stretch. If you seriously have a concern about the official name, you could open the discussion up in the Village pump but I have never had an editor raise concern nor seen an editor raise concern about this. Thank you and have a good day. DiscoA340 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That field only exists when it is not obvious or has a longer name than it typically goes by. Nobody disputes the fact that Durham is a City, yet you feel compelled to double-down on it because that is also their "official name." You are simply being redundant and I am strongly opposed to your recent edits to include that unneeded field. Instead of cherry-picking examples, why not reach out to other editors that agree with you on this first. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the feature doesn't mean everyone agrees with you (If a high traffic page like Chicago has it then must've been approved by hundreds of editors who could've have easily removed if they wanted to). I would highly recommend you file a discussion on village pump or some other board as you seem to be objecting to all articles that have this feature, not just my edits. I believe this is a discussion that would benefit with the inclusion of the greater Wikipedia community. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to confirm your changes are valid, not me... I am simply reverting them to the status quo. If the rules have changed, fine, prove it... show me the documentation. If you are unable to provide any validation, then this discussion is over. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by documentation. If the original template authors didn't want the official name to be used in these infoboxes, then they wouldn't provide an example infobox which shows the official name in use saying "City of Detroit." Nor would they state in Template:Infobox_settlement#TemplateData that the use of the official name is suggested, not optional like most of the other categories. It also states that the "common name" or "name" is the name that you would use the most while the "official name" is what the city calls itself which can be found on official documents.

It's also very hard to cherry pick city pages when almost every pages uses it. Its very hard to find a somewhat notable city page that doesn't use the official name including almost of the state capitals in the United States and other notable cities in Canada. I am assuming this but the only reason it seems that smaller, less notable towns don't have this feature is no one has bothered to add it (though I did find that Trenton, North Carolina already had it when I came to check it). This feature is not new, the only thing that seemed to have been changed is that it's more visible now (the Detroit example has been on the page at least since 2010 and the Chicago page has used it since at least since 2015). I don't know what other examples I can show you but I can assure you that my edits are not extraordinary, they were just to synchronize the NC pages with the rest of the US ones. DiscoA340 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice, you refuse to even acknowledge my comment and still undo my edits even though they are backed up by evidence. If you have a problem with the official name, start a discussion about it here at Village Pump. DiscoA340 (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You have ignored my advice, so the reverts should not have been a surprise. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

My evidence is stated above, as I have said before, no one else I have talked to raised concern about the official name. You don't ignore people, you bring it to a larger discussion. DiscoA340 (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You had your mind made up from the start, I showed you the documentation from the Official template help page and you still didn't care. I will be bringing this to a larger discussion tomorrow, if the opinion is keep the name, you will revert your edits, if the opinion is delete then it stays the same, Fair? DiscoA340 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@DiscoA340: I've been following this content dispute for a while over many different articles, and unfortunately, Template:Infobox settlement does not make clear which of you is correct. The "name" is the "usual name in English", and the "official_name" is the "official name in English if different from name". So, is "Mapleville" different or the same as "City of Mapleville"? I dunno, is it? The infobox template and its talk page also offer no additional explanation or clarification. In fact, in the examples provided for Chicago and Detroit, one uses an official name and one does not. But if you go to the webpages for these cities ([1][2]), both add "city of" to their official name. Why not just start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox settlement and get some clarification, which can then be used to update the infobox instructions? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: That sounds like a good idea as there seems to be no definite ruling on the official name. I've always thought it was an optional feature so I added it to keep it looking the same as other city pages that use it. But yes, there definitely needs to be a consensus on this or the use of it will be debate forever, it can't just be an optional suggested feature anymore. I'll also file a discussion on the page and add a RfC tag to getting a larger audience. DiscoA340 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 Discussion has now been opened. DiscoA340 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@DiscoA340: There is also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Infobox redundancies. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 I added a link to the new discussion, I think it would be better to have the discussion on the talk page of the template in question. DiscoA340 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

DiscoA340 (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit to 1 Bank of America Center

Thanks for your edit to this article. However, please in the future add a citation for a for all material added. The specific text you added actually is found in a Charlotte Observer article called "Reflections of Grandeur" published on June 1, 2010. City Dweller 2 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the reference you provided, nor have you properly cited the reference for editors like myself to review it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Regional sports networks on local TV templates

I would like to start a discussion (preferably an RFC) about whether regional sports networks should be featured on local TV templates. Where should we go to start? 100.7.44.80 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe you found the right group to ask and I followed suit, but they don't appear to be very active, which is concerning. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Bristol Mall

See this post at WP:RMTR which asks for the article to be moved back to Bristol Mall. It seems there has not yet been a full move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Track count at stations

Just an FYI: the track count for station infoboxes is the total number of tracks at the station (including non-passenger tracks), not just platform tracks. It's okay to add some detail in the infobox (e.g. 3 (2 main tracks, 1 platform siding) and/or the article prose. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I did ask the question first on WikiProject Trains before I made the changes. They indicated there is no set rule and tends to go either way by editor; I simply choose that it seems rational that the station would only operate the tracks that actually interact with the station. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Perms to help edit your sandbox to add info on the Bryson City depot.

Could I help out on your sandbox on adding the adjacent stations template to the page you are gonna create or not? ~

Also I was wondering about how much trouble you went through that I saw. RobloxUser4125 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I would appreciate it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. RobloxUser4125 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Washuotaku. Thank you for your work on Bryson City Depot. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! I encourage you to create more article. Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on an addition to Ironmouse?

I think it would be worthwhile linking to the inspiration for Mouse's username, but I don't know where best to include it in the article. Furthermore, the only possible sources would be links to Youtube clips of her claiming that was her inspiration. (However, the connection is evident enough without a source in my opinion as there is nothing else called Ironmouse predating her, but I'd like to know what you think.) 192.77.12.11 (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe we can go ahead and mention that in the article without reference at this time, if an editor wants one later we can simply link it to one of her VODS where she mentions it and at what time. It can be mentioned in the starting paragraph, last line simply saying "the name ironmouse was inspired by a character from Sailor Moon" or something like that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the reply! 192.77.12.11 (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Metrolina

Not trying to have a fight with you, but the reason I included the Metrolina name is so that it would encompass the whole market. I'm with you that you don't need to mention every town, but by using Metrolina, everyone is covered Vjmlhds (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the use of Metrolina because none of the television stations in the market even mention it. It isn't the same like the Triad or RTP area, where stations proudly mention that in the begining of every newcast; for Charlotte, it's just "Charlotte." Also, Metrolina does not cover the entire Charlotte TV Market, which expands to the northwestern mountain counties. Identifying as simply Charlotte works and nobody is confused by it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is what is considered to be the Charlotte TV market. It covers a lot of real estate, and what is considered as Metrolina makes a good chunk of it. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Better map. While "Metrolina" is a large chunk of it, the point I am trying to get you to understand is that nobody uses "Metrolina" in Charlotte. At best, there are a couple of car dealerships that use the name, but that is it. Nobody refers the area as that name and for most people they are unaware. So why highlight a name that is not utilized locally compared to the Triad and RTP? --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Apology...again...and want to improve

I appear to know absolutely nothing about this project. It seems like me being road junkie does not equal me having enough knowledge on the roads project as I have already messed up several times. It did not occur to me until after the second revert that the I-26 connecter project INCLUDED the extension of I-26 AND the realignment AND the upgrade to interstate standards. Of course, I'm annoyed that NCDOT signed the segment as I-26 rather than Future-26, which is what caused the confusion, but that's not important here. What is important is that I know how to be a more productive editor in this project without being annoying. Do you have any tips for me? ChessEric 20:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries, you are not the first person to make that assumption with I-26 through Asheville and I was being a bit harsh. Wikipedia demands reliable sources and even though you may have first hand knowledge of the situation, you are not considered credible unless its published in some way. So the goal is to always provide some sort of documentation that validates your changes, this is having references from news, press releases, articles, maps, and such. This is why that while, you are right, they used regular I-26 shields instead of Future 26 shields through Asheville (can validate with Google Streetview), the published resources by NCDOT is official and contradicts what they did on the ground (this will not be the only situation). That said, do not always assume other editors know what is correct either; if you have new evidence that supports your version then that is when you provide the sources and if they hold-up, they will shut-up. As for being productive, just do what you can and enjoy. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate it! I usually work on tornado articles, so I'm very new to this. However, it was this project that allowed to amend how I see "Future Routes" and "Future Corridors" along with seeing which routes are commissioned or decommissioned. I've since gone back and corrected multiple summaries that I made mistakes on based on this new knowledge. About being harsh, it appears that you had been doing a lot of reverts lately and having to do another one (especially since I made you do it twice), probably didn't help your mood. I've been there too, so don't worry about it. I hope to get along with you better in the future. Cheers! ChessEric 13:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

U.S. 70 in North Carolina

It took me some time to find the exact edit but how is it that this source <ref>{{cite map |publisher = North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission |url = https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1960.pdf |format = PDF |title = 1960 North Carolina Official Highway Map |author = North Carolina State Highway Commission |year = 1960 |location = Raleigh |access-date = March 31, 2016 |archive-date = March 5, 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160305085014/https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1960.pdf |url-status = live }}</ref> is used for "Around 1958 US 70 was removed from Ann Street to its current routing along Cedar Street in Beaufort"?

The reason I ask is that in the process of doing research for some missing information in another article, I found out about a section of U.S. 70 that opened in 1959, so I need a source for what happened in 1958 and I don't think a 1960 source will be adequate. I also don't believe my wording is quite right because it appears there was a road there, but it was four lanes as of 1959 and apparently two lanes before that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The source validates when it first appears on state issued maps, though it might be a stretch considering how small this change might be to be actually noticeable. I wish there was better sources, but they didn't do county maps often enough compared to state map. The road could have been improve and that is the reason for the rerouting along it; is it worth mentioning... well, depends how detailed you want to make the article. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to keep developments chronological and I noticed after I added the 1959 change that there was a 1960 change before that so I had to rearrange. How I would do that I wasn't sure, but if there's not a separate source for 1958, then either have that one out of order or do a named ref.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I truly hope they sign I-42 soon. Its tough to navigate around the U.S. 70 in North Carolina page when the link for I-42 goes to the future section. ChessEric 16:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Casino lists

Hello, thank you for your edits to clean up the state casino lists. But please do not change all the tribal casinos to be shown as land-based. A tribal casino is an important category in any imaginable taxonomy of casinos, as they exist in a whole different system from other casinos, even more so than other categories such as racinos and riverboat casinos. Listing a tribe as the owner is insufficient to highlight that difference. Toohool (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not make these changes in a vacuum, I sourced how all Casino articles were using "Type" and it gave only two choices. Now I am not against expanding the list in the column, but there was no list provided anywhere and all I saw was a mish-mash of different editors doing different things with it. So using Template:Infobox casino as my source, I made the changes that appeared to be correct; and to make sure I was not erasing anything, I moved the owning tribe into the comments section (some of which I had to fill-in-the-blank for). My recommendation is to take this discussion over to Talk:List of casinos in the United States page and hash-out what should be on this list going forward. I can already point out that the "District" column is not well utilized as it appears only Nevada used this system, what is something that is more important to put there instead? Just a thought. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

How to look up newspaper articles

You and I saw the same article about the potential NC 42 number change this morning, but there was a difference; you were able to read it. I wasn't. I know there is a way to bypass the need to have to sign up to newspapers sites to read such articles by using Wikipedia, but how does that work again? ChessEric 02:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I opened the article in "private window" in Firefox, MS Edge its "InPrivate" and I do not have Chrome installed, but I'm sure something similar is found there too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh...that's not the answer I expected. LOL! I use MS Edge for leisure, but I use Chrome for Incognito mode (which is the equivalent in this case). ChessEric 17:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't work for the News & Observer. They've figured out how to defeat private browsing. I saw the article on NewsBank. Need input on Talk:North Carolina Highway 213 .

WashuOtaku, I hope it's okay I copied your archive format for my talk page.

I was about to start a draft of the NC 36 article and realized their logic doesn't work since NC 73 already crosses Interstate 73 and the Rockingham Bypass is even worse because US 74 and Interstate 74 will have the same route, and they already do near Lumberton.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I would not write an article yet for NC 36 at this time, they are simply proposing and are having a open discussion about it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That's why it's just a draft.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Charlotte, NC

If you take a look at the recent version of the GNIS page for Charlotte, you will see that the info has been updated with 2404032 as the id# along with the various changes. Please check out the current Charlotte GNIS page for other changes. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I still do not see the reason to change it, the existing GNIS, 1019610, is centered, while the other is not. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The current GNIS page is an update, i.e. the current version. What does "is centered" have to do with it? Vsmith (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fall 2023

Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peak Mountain (disambiguation)

The article Peak Mountain (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Peak Mountain (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peak Mountain (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peak Mountain (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I-42

Regarding this edit, how come you removed my addition? The “other proposals” at the bottom of the page aren’t congressionally approved. The plans to make I-42 (west) happen are a little more substantial than I-67 or I-92, which will probably never happen. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If you believe I was wrong, then bring it up on the talk page for the article, not me. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to check in with you first, since you removed it, and your edit summary implied there was some sort of standard for the article. Given that a lot of users left this project, I wanted to talk to someone directly. So, given the similarity between the I-42 (west) proposal and some of the others under “other proposals”, I’d like to ask again why you removed what I added. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

These are being brought up at the local level and instead of highlighting it, we need to treat these with a grain of salt. These pushes for interstates in their areas will have some fan-fair, but generally do not get very far for one reason or another. Honestly, the entire section of "Other Proposals" should be dropped since they serve little purpose other than sharing somewhat outdated proposals that have not gain any traction. I'm being critical on adding to the list that shouldn't exist because it can balloon into a very long list, most of which can be discussed in other articles (i.e. US Route 412 for proposed I-42). --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink mobile, Washuotaku: Not to necro-post here, but AASHTO actually conditionally approved an I-42 designation for US 412 last month, but the application for it was withdrawn by the two states involved. There wasn't a reason given for the condition or the withdrawal, so we can only speculate as to what happened. Imzadi 1979 → 15:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware till the minutes were posted and that upsets me, especially when North Carolina tried similar with I-44 but was shot-down by AASHTO. What a strange reversal and even stranger withdrawal. Maybe the two DOTs realized that number was the not the best option and assumed AASHTO would correct it (speculation). --WashuOtaku (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

In the past, Interstate designation approvals have been conditional on FHWA approval. AASHTO probably approved it with that condition, but they didn't say. The minutes have been getting less detailed lately, and it's somewhat annoying. (I mean, they don't even list the date of the meeting on them anymore!) Without additional clarification, we're just left to speculate. Imzadi 1979 → 16:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So can I-42 get added back in? 😁 Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink mobile: Well, it was withdrawn so technically no. That is my opinion at least. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Rural Hall not Winston-Salem

This clearly shows that the interchange is in Rural Hall and this shows that BOTH interchanges are outside of Winston-Salem city limits. I didn't change this on the fly; that's not how I operate, so please don't assume that I just changed it because I just wanted to. Please change it back. ChessEric 01:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I dare say that NC 66 interchange is in Stanleyville, not Winston-Salem. ChessEric 01:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Rural Hall does not even touch the NC 66 interchange, but Winston-Salem incorporates both interchanges; Rural Hall town limit is right off the other interchange. I would also advise against Stanleyville, an unincorporated community that is already half eaten by Winston-Salem. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You asked me to check Google Maps and the NCDOT maps and that is what I did. Stanleyville is not only on both maps, but is on the NC 66 interchange, so I don't agree with you there. For the other interchange, Google Maps shows the southbound exit ramp from US 52 onto NC 74 is in the Rural Hall city limits, so I don't agree with you there either. I guess I'm arguing schematics at this point with the latter interchange, so I'll leave that alone, but I cannot agree with you on the NC 66 interchange when the community point is literally right on the interchange. ChessEric 05:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Winston-Salem city limits are at the interchange, but the location is also known as Stanleyville, even state official maps acknowledge that fact. Would it be acceptable to get a third opinion on this; I just feel that an incorporated city trumps an unincorporated community. Ask an editor if they are willing to be the arbiter on that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do that, but okay. I come from the severe weather project and when we describe weather events, we typically use all locations to say where events took place. Many unincorporated communities are used as a result, so I'm big on using most locations, especially if they have an article about it. That's just my opinion on the subject. ChessEric 16:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I get that, that is why Interstate 485 lists towns/cities nearby in the infobox instead of just saying "Charlotte." Since its a beltway around the city, it should be a given. Just reach out to another editor that made edits to the article in the past or post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads; I will yield if others agree with you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm doing that right now. Thanks for talking to me about this; I will admit that its pretty easy for me to get into editing warring if I'm not careful, but your timely response kept me from doing that. ChessEric 18:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Washuotaku. Thank you for your work on Dixie, North Carolina. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Thank you! --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverts Without A Real Reason

Why don’t you believe in the me? The evidence is from Google maps which is the route name, direction of any segments, signs of freeway names, signs of additions, showing if that new segment is complete, size of cities to find much major towns, etc. Eggboss (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Parkway

Have you ever been to Gatlinburg, Pigeon Forge and Sevierville? If you had you would know that the road is not called "Great Smoky Mountains Parkway" on road signs, by the cities's government or the United States postal service for addresses. It is simply "Parkway". your reasoning was redundant, especially your comment comparing it to the BRP. -ACase0000 (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I have actually. I will be fine with it if you can validate it with a source. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of WCEE-LD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WCEE-LD is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCEE-LD until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Link To I-20 Extension New Document Talk Page

User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2024/February#Interstate 20 Extension (New Info) 2600:1005:B0CF:49F7:5842:8635:879E:758E (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Should I nominate?

Hiya, Washuotaku. For the Interstate 40 in North Carolina article, I noticed lots of citation needed errors and some tags. However, later on, I fixed them up, removed the tags, and made some minor improvements. I know I might not have been a significant contributor to the article, but do you mind if I nominate it for GA status since it looks perfectly fine? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I do not mind. Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It shows that you have the strongest amount of effort, but I'm glad to do that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Qualla Boundary

Have you looked at the source?

Although telling this man he was wrong is pointless. I have tried numerous times to contact this paper about errors or other problems and they refuse to listen.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article explains what the Qualla Boundary is; to place further down that it is considered a sovereign nation opens a can of worms to EXPLAIN why that is, which is just unnecessary. That is why Further information: Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was included in the Government section, which a reader can go to understand who the EBCI is and that they are a domestic dependent nation. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know how to determine what the "sovereign nation" actually was. The EBCI article, I assumed, referred to a group of people, and not the nation. I can't see what you're describing in that article, which is why I did what I did.

I'm still not clear on how one can conclude the Qualla Boundary is a "sovereign nation" from there.

If you look at the source, can you see anything the writer is saying that might be considered incorrect, or is Wikipedia actually interpreting it correctly?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not know why you want to include sovereign nation just because the article you are sourcing is saying that. Yes, all the Federally recognized American Indian tribes are sovereign nations. However, there is a legal term they use, domestic dependent nation, and that explains the political situation these tribes, including the EBCI, are in. The question though is why do you want to include it? To me, it is not necessary to have it in the Qualla Boundary when it already identifies being administered by the EBCI. If they want to know more about the EBCI, then they click the link... and it says they are a domestic dependent nation, if they want to know more they click on that.

The Qualla Boundary article is unique that it is an article about the territory held by a tribe; most other articles have both the tribe and the territory together, but most tribes also do not have specific name for their territory either, a history, or an organization how it is setup either. The point is that the Qualla Boundary is not sovereign nation itself, its the territory of a domestic dependent nation that has autonomous administrative control to that territory. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, if you are sure all the information is there. Is there someplace that their term "sovereign nation" is defined the way you do?

But I looked in the obvious places for "domestic dependent nation" in the ECBI article and I'm not finding it. This may be a case where we need to make clear another meaning of "sovereign nation", in several articles. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I needed to use a piped link. I realize that now. But until you explained, I didn't know what it would link to. What do you think of this hatnote? Although it would still require some explanation of the term "sovereign nation" in the target article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly recommend dropping the idea entirely. Both the Qualla Boundary and EBCI articles are the worse place to start digging into sovereign nation status with American Indians. There are articles, like Tribal sovereignty in the United States and Native Americans in the United States, that goes into the legality of sovereignty in the United States. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you feel strongly, I suppose I must. I just don't see the description that you are telling me exists. That's why I did what I did. Was the hatnote okay? I see someone has tried to be politically correct and I was debating the exact wording.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

CATS Red Line commuter rail

Hi there – I noticed that you made the initial edit to what is now I-77 Bus Rapid Transit when the Red Line rail proposal was transitioned into a BRT proposal back in 2019.

Just today Charlotte announced that they have reached a non-binding agreement with Norfolk Southern to acquire rights to the O-Line for commuter rail service. This follows some public meetings CATS conducted in April regarding the project.

Of course, there's still a lot up in the air at the moment. However, as someone who is (1) not acquainted with how to retitle/move/etc. Wikipedia pages in general, (2) nor familiar with Charlotte or this project's long and winding path, I thought I'd put this on the radar of another editor who might be better-suited to update this page without jumping ahead of actual developments. However, hopefully these citations formatted in CS1 templates are useful to just copy-paste as needed!

References

Peloneous(t)[c] 02:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of today's announcement, which is basically that they have "officially" announced they are in discussion. Does that mean that the commuter rail is happening now, no. The BRT plan (also proposed as the red line) is also an active project, though CATS has dragged their feet on that too. A lot of stuff is preliminary and I am on the wait and see approach. If you want to update the article, go have at it; just remember that none of it is a given at this time and can easily fall apart. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

US 29 in Greensboro, NC

I can't believe there's no information about when each route of US 29 through Greensboro was built. I asked the NCDOT and was sent links to several maps which sort of confirm that the road was built. I went to the Greensboro library and was shown some maps, but there were only maps from 1943, 1951, 1957 and sometime in the 1960s. There were files with some newspaper articles, but almost nothing was there. How do we confirm when these roads were built and when they were numbered US 29?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

When no official documentation is forthcoming, the second option is to use the state maps as official documentation. The UNC digital library has every year of the state maps, so I use those to identify when a change was done. --WashuOtaku (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked the NCDOT but they sent me only a few select maps.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Please use the references used in North Carolina Highway 101 to access the UNC digital library. Once you figure out how the system works, you should have no issues finding the maps. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There don't seem to be a lot of maps. I was looking for clearer evidence. Also, the state map is no help when I need Greensboro. There are no roads shown in the city limits.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You could try using NCDOT's historic county maps too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I did, but they're not printed often enough. Thanks for trying.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wil-Cox Bridge

Hello Washuotaku, I regret to tell you that the information concerning Stoneman is really wrong and that you unjustly deleted my edit. Stoneman's colonel Miller with about 1000 of his troops was indeed defeated in the Battle of Fort York, at the Yadkin Bridge, on April 12, 1865 by about the same number of Confederates on the Davidson side of the river, it was the last Confederate victory in North Carolina.

See: http://www.trading-ford.org/stoneman.html.

Fort York was overlooking from the Davidson side of the Yadkin river what are now the Wil-Cox Bridge and the junction of IS 85 and US 29. See: https://www.salisburypost.com/2017/03/28/fort-york-last-confederate-victory-nc/ and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wil-Cox_Bridge_over_the_Yadkin.jpg

On April 13th, while his general Gillem was still destroying buildings and tons of goods in Salisbury, Stoneman went straight westward to Statesville (from where he left for Tennessee, leaving the rest of the raid to Gillem, Palmer, Brown and others), so he never crossed the Yadkin River by the Wil-Cox Bridge, nor was he able to destroy that one bridge.

My kind request is to correct the page and replace my edit.Wildel (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Neither did Stoneman cross the Yadkin at this site when he was coming to Salisbury: on April 9, 1865, while coming from Winston-Salem to Mocksville he led 4000 men across the Yadkin at Shallow Ford. See: https://www.dncr.nc.gov/blog/2016/04/11/stonemans-troops-crossed-yadkin-river-shallow-ford Greetings, Wildel (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Slight correction: That crossing of the Yadkin must have been on April 11, though in the same night they were already twelve miles north of Salisbury... Wildel (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not mind corrections to history, but your use of fluff forced me to revert the edit. The article is supposed to be neutral, but wording like suffer to vainly is more of an editor's interpretation and since you did not add any sources to validate those descriptive words when making the edit, I was compelled to push back on it. Another way to look at it is to ask the questions of why did he suffer or why was it vainly and does the article go on to explain that; since that is more of a tangent considering it is an article about a bridge and not the battle, it is better to keep such words out. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I put it back without the fluff.Wildel (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I-42 signage

Sorry for jumping the gun before, but there has been confirmation that signage for I-42 is appearing on the Goldsboro Bypass. We can go ahead and start moving the info over whenever you like. ChessEric 15:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So I believe the new NC 540 / I-40 / I-42 interchange was going to be I-42's coming out party; but the delay messed that up and now the scheduled signage change along the Goldsboro bypass has already began. My recommendation is to wait till the new interchange opens for the new article as then we capture both segments at the get-go, not have this weird this happened first but yet this came later thing. Two or three weeks extra is not going to be a big deal if people are patient and take the time to draft a good article for Interstate 42 (North Carolina) (merging information from the Goldsboro Bypass and Future Interstate 42). --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, especially since trying to add one at a time will probably be a total mess. There will be milepost and exit number changes, the need to avoid adding redundant info, and a consensus on when exactly the interstate was "officially designated" among other things. ChessEric 22:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like right now that the sign is its own thing and nothing yet on the Goldsboro bypass has converted; even the exit numbers are still the same. However, work on a draft article should start. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

A recent press release from NCDOT said that they will start signing the Goldsboro bypass this Fall. The Clayton bypass will be signed next year. ChessEric 01:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Are you going to create a new article now? --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I would, but I’m busy. I could do some copy-pasting of the info from the US 70 (NC) article since most of the info is the same if you want. Some excerpting isn’t a bad idea either in my opinion. ChessEric 04:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: revert on Interstate 440 (North Carolina) edit

The source included in my edits includes photos of I-440's former north and south designation, such as the gantry in the background here. If this is still an invalid source let me know and I can look elsewhere. Thank you. MikeM2011 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia really does not like self published sources, which is why I reverted. Recomended are third-party sourcee, like media, and NCDOT themselves. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverts on I-42 and NC 42

I find it rather puzzling that my recent edits for I-42 and NC 42 were reverted. The reason why I added these distinguishments are that both highways meet up with one another in Clayton, NC. Two other such distinguishments are present for these locations:

1. US 95 and Arizona State Route 95 in Quartzsite, Arizona
2. A future one in Lufkin, Texas, where US 69 would intersect with I-69 (assuming that TxDOT does not renumber the former)

@ FreewayDan (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are worried because of that then do not worry, NCDOT is changing the designation from NC 42 to NC 36. --WashuOtaku (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Zentreya

Hello, Washuotaku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zentreya, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Lakeview Drive

It is how it is worded on BOTH entrance signs for the road. You can see one sign on Google Maps Streetview by typing in these coordinates or address: 35.4500320, -83.4783714

3169-3001 Lakeview Dr E, Bryson City, NC 28713

So yes it should be mentioned. ACase0000 (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Before I undo your edit I just wanted to make sure you saw this and looked at the sign for yourself, since you never replied. —ACase0000 (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A question about a user's edit.

Is this a fair and justified edit? Symantec2000 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That was what was there before. Annexed is more correct because it was added into something existing, while incorporated would be that it became its own thing or become independent. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but i can't totally agree your opinion. The word "incorporate" just means to include something as part of something larger, [3]

However, "annexed" nowadays often carries a negative connotation of force or illegitimacy, especially in modern political contexts. In contrast "incorporate" simply reflects a formal legal inclusion of something into an existing larger entity without implicit implication of "coercion" or "aggression", making it a more neutral choice for describing the event. Therefore better adheres to the NPOV guideline. Symantec2000 (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

US 74 West End Changed

Please respond to this about US 74 west end change at Talk:U.S. Route 74#Western Terminus Changed, thank you. 69.1.59.248 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)