For the User's sandbox, see User:MatthewAnderson707/sandbox.

It's been a nice 16 years. However, because of the way standards are changing and some users are abusing said standards, I quit. Wikipedia may go in any direction it likes, but I no longer support the project, nor do I wish to contribute to it. This was supposed to be a public knowledge database and repository, not a carbon copy of Encyclopedia Britannica.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 19:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WS, regarding this article, you only cite one source which is ASN. But the material you added includes many more details, of which ASN covers only a small part. Would you mind telling where you got that material? And why that source is not mentioned in the article? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted you change to the Template:Infobox aircraft type as I could not find any supporting discussion, and apology if you have agreed this somewhere but I could find it. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox aircraft type your comment would be welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the messsage, I appreciate that you made the change in good faith but with any changes made to the template appearing in loads of aircraft articles we have to take care. If you have any ideas then a suggestion on the template talk page or even better on the WP:AVIATION talk page might get support for any change. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed for deletion the Constellation production lists that you have jsut created, we dont normally create production lists, I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Lockheed Constellation production list if you would like to comment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lockheed Constellation production list has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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.

I have nominated this for delete. Not because it is a bad idea, but because there is absolutely no relevant content even in the links supplied. If you are in the process of building the article/list please do it in your sandbox before sending to main-space.(forgot to sign)Petebutt (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I think you have the wrong end of the stick. You haven't done any harm, in fact you have taken part in the process that is Wikipedia. The reason the lists have been deleted is not that they were harmful or you did wrong in writing them, just that they were in the wrong place and there is no need for them on Wikipedia. It is important that you understand that your input is welcome, but may be modified, and possibly deleted, by others to make it fit into the various guidelines, with the same applying to every edit made including mine!! So keepyour pecker up and carry on inputting. If you want someone to check out your articles before posting them in main space you could drop them in my sandbox [User:Petebutt/Sandbox] and leave a note on my talk page.Petebutt (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fleet Listing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lockheed Constellation production list TOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello White Star Line Fan! It has been pointed out on the Science Ref Desk that the Max. takeoff weight of 136,000 lbs is less than the empty weight of 150,999 lbs currently given in the Lockheed L-1249 Super Constellation that you created back in October 2011. Can you please verify these figures? (Even if they were reversed, a 15,000 lb difference doesn't sound like much capacity. I see that Lockheed Constellation gives an Empty weight of 79,700 lb and a maximum takeoff weight of 137,500 lb.) -- ToE 02:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 99, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Burbank and Glendale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MatthewAnderson707. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 07:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Columbia (1880), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Life preservers and Lifeboat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Columbia (1880), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lightship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Columbia (1880), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page U.S. Marine Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS San Juan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Trachea and S.O.S. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Parthia (1870), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of U.S. Highways in Arizona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ehrenberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes. US 491 is a Featured Article, and FAs need to use "high-quality reliable sources". The website you used, http://www.arizonaroads.com/, is a self-published source that doesn't qualify as a regular reliable source. Imzadi 1979 → 06:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Start Line Fan, I like and appreciate the attempt to "color up" the articles with vintage shields. However, this does have it's limits.

I have two concerns about this navigational template: Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan. I have no doubt it is true, but it is also based on Self published sources. This template also touches on issues with the Icon & Flags policy, which the WP:USRD project has interpreted to apply highway articles as explained here: WP:USRD/STDS#Shields. Lastly, there is a debate on the appropriateness and value of these navigational templates in general. Arguably, they serve the same purpose as a category, and can run afoul of the policy on category clutter. However, I'll leave that debate for others, as I have mixed feelings on it.

Adding to what Imzadi has said, It's not to say that arizonaroads is a bad resource. Far from it, I've used and enjoyed reading the content on that site for years. For the reasons Imzadi states, any addition to an article like US 491 will have more scrutiny than, say the same addition on the article for US Route 91, which has not yet been peer reviewed and ranked as a quality article.

Cheers, and I hope these comments are taken in the spirit intended, I like of many of your contributions, just expressing concerns about some. Dave (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback very much. I apologize for any inconveniences as my only goal was to improve information on Arizona Highway History to the degree of Washington and California.707 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I like the color shields, and the fact that I have an old AZ highway map that confirms they were used at one time means they have a place here. =-) Nobody's saying "you can't do that", just asking to find better sources and be aware of policies on the subject. Thanks for engaging in conversation, and I'm sure our paths will continue to cross with a common interest in Arizona highways. Dave (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You created a bunch of subtemplates earlier today to put two older styles of AZ markers into use. All of that work was worthless though as those style subtemplates are no longer in use. There is a Lua module for each state that handles the type codes for that state now. For AZ, it is Module:Road data/strings/USA/AZ. If you are unsure though, don't edit the module as mistakes will screw up every article for Arizona. Imzadi 1979 → 20:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of State Roads in New Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nogales, Mexico. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're emulating U.S. Route 66, which was judged to be a special case, when you should be emulating things like U.S. Route 16 in Michigan or U.S. Route 33 in Michigan. In short, we normally use the condition of the highway at the time it was decommissioned when creating the route description or junction list for an article. The concept is that if Wikipedia existed at the time the highway was removed from a state, the article would have been kept updated to reflect the configuration of the roadway up until it was removed, and then after it was decommissioned, the article would have been updated in terms of verb tense ("was" instead of "is"), etc. US 66 was judged to be a special case that isn't the template to be used.

Also, when creating special route types for specific vintages, the format of the type is "US 1948-Bus", not "US-Bus 1948". Imzadi 1979 → 04:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, yes I was emulating US 66 to a point with the styling of the articles. However, I have also noticed the Texas State Highway 1, U.S. Route 466 and U.S. Route 99 articles have similar features when it comes to junctions and length. The SH 1 article in particular shows the route prior to 1935 and the US 99 article showing its length, junctions and termini prior to 1964. The same goes for US 466. I was also taking into consideration those articles and not just US 66. Thank you and apologies for any inconveniences. MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those other examples should be changed as well as time allows. US 66 is a special case because of the nostalgia factor, and because tour guides treat it at its greatest extent, not its last, greatly diminished, extent. The other highways don't have those factors, so we should keep to the idea that the article should reflect the final state of a highway before it was decommissioned. Imzadi 1979 → 08:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to disagree on US 66 being the only special exception. US 80 is marked as a historic highway and while it has not received nearly as much attention as US 66, there are books, webpages and other media, not to mention whole organizations and towns such as the Corporation for Historic Route 80 in California that recognize the highway not in its diminished days, but at its full length from San Diego to Tybee Island. In much of California, the highway is well marked as Historic US 80. The state of Mississippi has also marked a historic US 80 through downtown Vicksburg. I appreciate and understand your feelings, opinions and concerns when it comes to the composition to the US 80 articles for New Mexico and Arizona, but I still disagree.MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979 → 04:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for good reliable sources for Arizona highways, I would try and get access to archives of newspapers. If you go to the college I think you go to, you should be able to get access through there (which I won't say to protect your privacy). I got a lot of stuff for Interstate 8 from newpaperarchive.com, which has a good selection of Arizona newspapers. --Rschen7754 02:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea why that road was built? It's now part of US 160. There is a draft article covering the New Mexico portion of US 160 (really), and some context on why SR 364 was built could shine some light on the New Mexico part. I can start working on an Arizona US 160 draft if you're interested. –Fredddie™ 23:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great project! Unfortunately, I have no idea when SR 364 was built. I could look through the ADOT records provided on a website if that would help. It gave the full dates for SR 93 and US 80.MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MatthewAnderson707. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PRR 5550, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keystone. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duplex locomotive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, MatthewAnderson707. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This may be of interest to you. –Fredddie™ 04:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I redid the shields to the exact dimensions of that PDF. Now it really matches specs, where the other shields were just blind guesses based off photo traces. I mean where are you going to find documents for old NM and AZ signs right? Especially since ADOT loves to toss out everything when they're done with it. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guy whose name is on that PDF is active in the roadgeek community. I would wager that he has designs stashed away somewhere in his collection. –Fredddie™ 16:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding? Thanks for the tip off! In the meantime, I'll continue doing some more research on Arizona's historic highways and try to clean up a few more articles. I think I've pretty much finished with SR 84 for now.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arizona State Route 84, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Mexico State Road 80, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Spanish Trail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U.S. Route 80 in Arizona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salt River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of U.S. Highways in Alabama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MatthewAnderson707. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Terminus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979 → 04:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article U.S. Route 80 in Arizona you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wyatt2049 -- Wyatt2049 (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article U.S. Route 80 in Arizona you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:U.S. Route 80 in Arizona for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wyatt2049 -- Wyatt2049 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that we should rename the page since it is concurrent with US-180? Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. We should consult with Imzadi1979 and Fredddie about this. Maybe they can help with the idea since US 1 and US 9 have a dedicated concurrency page; U.S. Route 1/9. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 21:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article U.S. Route 95 in Arizona you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AmericanAir88 -- AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article U.S. Route 95 in Arizona you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:U.S. Route 95 in Arizona for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AmericanAir88 -- AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article U.S. Route 70 in Arizona you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ToThAc -- ToThAc (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article U.S. Route 70 in Arizona you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:U.S. Route 70 in Arizona for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ToThAc -- ToThAc (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope we can work together on bringing future numbered highways in the southwestern U.S. to GA status. In fact, I'll probably start working on U.S. Route 290 next. ToThAc (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too! I'm planning on updating U.S. Route 60 in Arizona or U.S. Route 89 in Arizona next or writing U.S. Route 191 in Arizona. In the meantime, I'm working to make sure U.S. Route 66 in Arizona and U.S. Route 80 in Arizona reach GA standards. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 16:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article U.S. Route 66 in Arizona you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article U.S. Route 66 in Arizona you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:U.S. Route 66 in Arizona for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you found a more official venue that can be used to source instantaneous mileages in Texas road articles (specifically this). While this is fantastic to see, I'm not entirely sure how to use it properly. Mind informing me on its usage so I can use it on other articles? ToThAc (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I also recently posted a peer review that I think could maybe use your input while I wait for Fredddie to post his thoughts on the article. ToThAc (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToThAc: Absolutely. First, you zoom in to the road you want to get mileage info off of, then you click the LRS tab on the left-hand side of the webpage. Then, you make sure the option is set to "Distance from Origin". Afterward, click on the area of the highway you are getting mileage info for with your mouse cursor. It should show the mileage on the left-hand side of the page as well as on the map itself. Sometimes, other highways get in the way of getting junction info for the route you're aiming for. In said case, zoom in as close as you can to the intersection and try to click the closest point possible on the desired route to the major intersection. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 06:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SIGIMAGE and remove the image from your signature coding. Thank you, Imzadi 1979 → 06:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: Removed. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 06:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your name on WT:USRD so I thought I'd ask since no one ever seems to respond to my posts:

The article List of temporary Interstate Highways has been unsourced since creation in 2005 and hasn't gotten an iota of TLC. Some of these are so short-lived that they probably didn't even appear on any maps. What should be done with this list? Does anyone want to clean it up? Should it be deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I'm not sure what to do in this situation. List articles have a different rating and quality policy than other articles, so this is a difficult call. I know there are reputable sources to at least for Temporary I-10 in Arizona. I can't exactly remember all of them at the top of my head, but I know ADOT has resolutions proving its existence. For the rest, I'd say do some advanced searching on search engines and state or university archive websites for any reputable sources or other information you can find. If it's a self-published source, which is basically a personal website where a road enthusiast posts highway info on, that would be acceptable to use as a temporary source until a better source can be located. I know this wasn't of much help, but I'm also still learning the ropes of WP:USRD. Fredddie, Imzadi1979 and Rschen7754 would know how to deal with this stuff better than I would, given they're veterans at dealing with these sort of issues. If you already tried to contact them and they haven't responded, it's probably because they are offline or busy. They're usually good at getting back to me on things. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 00:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Imzadi1979 and he just reverted the discussion without saying anything. I've submitted it to AFD after some extensive searching. Most of the ones I see listed weren't even on maps (such as Temporary I-196, which I'm not sure even existed). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Where did he revert the discussion? — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 01:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right here, he just archived it without answering. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I don't know what his deal is. He ignored me several times too and never replied. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 02:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, I was actually thinking that it seemed odd that we had an article for this and was wondering whether it should still exist. I didn't feel strongly enough to do anything about it though. I guess my issue with it is that it borders on trivia - I'm sure we could source some of them (I-15 in CA comes to mind). --Rschen7754 02:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article U.S. Route 80 in Arizona you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:U.S. Route 80 in Arizona for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, one option is to create redirects for all the north and east shields and another set of redirects for the south and west. Let me demonstrate:

US %route% (1960 AZ west).svg → US %route% (1960 AZ 1).svg

US %route% (1960 AZ east).svg → US %route% (1960 AZ 2).svg

US %route% (1960 AZ south).svg → US %route% (1960 AZ 1).svg

US %route% (1960 AZ north).svg → US %route% (1960 AZ 2).svg

Then your default would work {"US %route% (1960 AZ 1).svg", "US %route% (1960 AZ 2).svg"} and we could simplify the code on /shieldmain/. –Fredddie™ 04:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: Not a bad idea. Would it also work if I created the redirects the other way around?— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 04:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. –Fredddie™ 04:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article U.S. Route 66 in Arizona you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:U.S. Route 66 in Arizona for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a message to say I've started adding comments on this one! Nice to be working with you again :) If you're under a lot of schoolwork, we can always discuss it, and I'll be glad to help (with the article, not the college). Kingsif (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article U.S. Route 80 in Alabama you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article U.S. Route 80 in Alabama you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:U.S. Route 80 in Alabama for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article U.S. Route 80 in Alabama you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:U.S. Route 80 in Alabama for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MatthewAnderson707. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Graham87 17:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MatthewAnderson707!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, MatthewAnderson707. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/List of state routes in Arizona, 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) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and delete it. Apologies for the unnecessary page. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 18:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MatthewAnderson707. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Wikipedia KML/List of state routes in Arizona".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]