User talk:Dudeperson176123

Reasons why to not call me Dudeperson

I would calmly tell you this quote

It's Dudeperson 176123 not Dudeperson!

2. I just think it would be good to Wikipedia

3. You only live a short life you should NOT block people for over a year.

July 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Pig Goat Banana Cricket has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Pig Goat Banana Cricket was changed by Dudeperson176123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.919071 on 2015-07-19T13:39:28+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rocky Neck Connector

The article Rocky Neck Connector has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not significant, but not A7.

While all constructive 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. Iamahashtag (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{proposed deletion/dated}}

Nomination of Alps Road, Branford for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alps Road, Branford 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/Alps Road, Branford until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reinventing the wheel

We already have several existing list articles for Connecticut's highways. We don't need to create new pages that partially duplicate those lists, especially when the new lists do not seem to have coherent rationales for what gets included. Imzadi 1979 → 12:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pulaski Circle

The article Pulaski Circle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable intersection

While all constructive 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. Imzadi 1979 → 02:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pulaski Circle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pulaski Circle 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/Pulaski Circle until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Imzadi 1979 → 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Slip (Dead End)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Slip (Dead End). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Dead end. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Dead end – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. --Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 23:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George Washington Boulevard

The article George Washington Boulevard has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable roadway

While all constructive 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. Imzadi 1979 → 22:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Standish Way

The article Standish Way has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable road

While all constructive 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. Imzadi 1979 → 22:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standish Way

You are invited to join the discussion at Standish Way. Thanks. Samuel Tarling (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your article creations

You seem to be very enthusiastic about creating new articles. That's not a bad thing, if the articles you are creating should exist. However, you're creating articles about roadways with questionable notability, and that's a problem. You should read up about WP:GNG, which is explained quite well over at WP:42. State highway systems easily satisfy the GNG rule, but with the many pieces to cover, a scheme to cover them has developed. Described at WP:USRD/MP, the "Michigan Plan" describes the idea that there should be a hierarchy of articles that fully cover the system to avoid WP:SIZE-related issues. While our policies may say that notability can't be inherited, the Michigan Plan works with the concept that state highways should be covered in a way that avoids gaps in the system even if some articles may not strictly satisfy the GNG rule.

Articles on state highways are presumed to get an independent article if you can find enough to write about them. We apply the GNG test to other levels of roadways to decide if they should get articles. There's are reasons that H-58 or County Road 595 have articles while H-01 or County Road 456 do not. For those with articles, they have the types of coverage in the types of sources we require to establish notability for independent articles while the others do not. Even where we don't write a separate article, we can still cover a roadway to cover the parts of a system of roads, like we do with H-01.

That last idea also applies to state highways. In most states, it's actually pretty rare for a road to achieve that status. In my home state of Michigan, there are 9,669 miles (15,561 km) of state highways out of 120,256 miles (193,533 km) of roadways in the state. That's only about 8% of the state's roads. Something special sets them apart, which is why we presume they're notable.

But that isn't a guarantee we'll devote an independent article to each state highway. M-164 redirects to the row of the state highway list's table because we wouldn't have more to say about it than its termini, length, and dates of existence. M-178 is covered in the history of M-28 because all of old M-178 is part of the route of M-28 now. The history of M-554 is intertwined with that of M-553, but its route was different, so it's covered as a separate section of the M-553 article. Business routes are often merged into their parent highways' articles, or they're grouped together, like Business routes of Interstate 75 in Michigan when such a merger would create an article that's too large.

In short, state-maintenance is not a guarantee that an article should exist. It means we should cover the roadway, although we can limit that coverage to a list, a section of another article, or even just a single row in a table. Imzadi 1979 → 08:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Boston-Providence Highway

The article Boston-Providence Highway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

article fails to satisfy WP:GNG

While all constructive 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. Imzadi 1979 → 08:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New user orientation

I really think you need to read Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New user orientation and look at some high-quality articles before you go any further with editing on state highway articles. Your recent creations are very problematic. Some of the text has been very confusing, almost to the point that it was incoherent to read. You're working on articles about non-notable, or barely notable, roadways. As I explained, not every state highway gets a separate article, and sometimes it is best to cover roads elsewhere and not write a full article.

If you have questions, please ask. We are a collaborative project. We work through communicating with each other. If people are taking the time to try to explain thing to you, and you just ignore them, then you'll find that other editors will start ignoring you too. You could see editors continuing to nominate stuff for deletion in ways you can't stop by removing a notice. As you've found out, you can just remove a PROD tag, but if someone sends one of your articles to WP:AFD, you're not allowed to remove the tag. Once something is at AFD, other editors will voice their opinions, and you'll just be one of group of people commenting. If the AFD discussion determines that an article is to be deleted, it is gone. If you recreate it without fixing the issues that lead to its deletion, it can be WP:CSD-tagged for immediate deletion. In short, ask questions, get clarification and reply when others talk to you, or else your career here could be short and unpleasant. Imzadi 1979 → 13:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've tried to tell you, some roadways should not get articles. They might get coverage on Wikipedia, but not as separate articles. You really need to heed the advice you're being given and read up on our notability requirements around here. As for the articles you've been creating, let's take a quick survey of their fates:

Rocky Neck Connector: redirects to a list
Alps Road, Branford: deleted
Pulaski Circle: WP:PROD-ed and now at WP:AFD
Slip (Dead End): deleted (and very oddly titled)
George Washington Boulevard PROD-ed and now redirects to a list entry because of concerns over notability for a full article
Standish Way: PROD-ed and now at AFD
Boston–Providence Highway: PROD-ed and now a redirect. Also, this one could be misnamed as it seems you renamed the entry in the table and the old name may need to be restored. What do the reliable sources actually call it? Maps seem to omit the "Boston–" part.
Rockland Street in Hingham, Massachusetts: deleted. It was also misnamed; the city would be added in parentheses like "Rockland Street (Hingham, Massachusetts)".
Leominster Connector‎: redirected
List of Connector roads in Massachusetts: redirected as a duplicate of a section of List of numbered routes in Massachusetts. Is there any source that says the Massachusetts Department of Transportation uses "connector road" as an official classification, or are you just calling them that? If so, then you really need to read WP:NOR, our policy on "no original research". That's one of the 5 Core Principles around here. In short, you need an existing source for any ideas you're adding to Wikipedia because we don't publish your original ideas.
List of Numbered Highways in Connecticut and List of Highways in Connecticut: both duplicated existing lists and has been redirected

Of all of the articles you've created, Branford Connector (Connecticut) is the only one in good shape because other editors have expanded it and cleaned it up. It's borderline at the moment for being redirect into the list though.

So please read the new user orientation guide I linked above. Look over a few important policies, like WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Your editing career will be much less frustrating if you can learn some basics to avoid creating articles that just get deleted or redirected. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am about 15 days old on Wikipedia but what is going happen to Massachusetts Route 85 Connector and U.S. Route 20 Connector? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeperson176123 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's encouraging that you're finally replying. (Note, you need to end your postings on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~ to insert a proper signature.) If you hadn't started replying, some administrator could have blocked your account from editing to force you to communication with those of use who have concerns. As for those other two new articles, well, I have two immediate questions.

Are they actually called that by MassDOT? If they aren't, then the articles need to be renamed (moved) to correct names.
Are there any sources about those roads that would establish their notability? If not, they may need to be merged into sections of the parent highways. (Not "father highways".)

What happens next depends on the answers to those questions. They could end up nominated for deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Dudeperson176123 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rockland Street in Hingham, Massachusetts

The article Rockland Street in Hingham, Massachusetts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable street, fails WP:STREET and WP:GNG

While all constructive 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. Everymorning talk 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Deb (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Standish Way for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Standish Way 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/Standish Way until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MA 85 & US 20 Connectors

For the record, let's try to straighten things out. MA 85 Connector and US 20 Connector are mild roads that don't deserve their own articles, in fact US 20 Connector is barely existent. I merged MA 85 Connector to Massachusetts Route 85#Route 85 Connector. If you want to help, do us a favor and stop making new articles for now. If you'd like help, you can join us at Internet Relay Chat at #wikipedia-en-roads where there are editors who can help you. Mitch32^{(The best ideas are common property.)} 23:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete Morgantown Connector

Please delete the page Morgantown Connector or redirect it to Interstate 176. You will be thanked whoever you are. Dudeperson176123 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morgantown Expressway Spur

The Morgantown Expressway Spur is too short and unimportant of a road to have its own article and is better to be covered in the I-176 article. The road is basically a long exit ramp from I-176 to PA 10/PA 23. Dough4872 18:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this photo?

File:Connecticut Highway 994.jpeg What is this supposed to be? Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A customized photo of a Connecticut road sign with 994 on it. Dudeperson176123 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no license for the photo, and that's a big problem. Given that the photo doesn't look anything like an actual sign in use, it should never appear in any articles, and it may be nominated for deletion. I seriously suggest that you add a {{db-g7}} tag to the file's description page so that and admin can delete it without forcing this to go to a deletion discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"ferry highway"

I challenge your usage of this as a term. I can find no source that uses the term. Please stop restoring it unless you can find a source. Continuing to restore it may constitute vandalism, and continuing to vandalize articles may result in suspension of your editing privileges. (In other words, you can be blocked.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know I was vandalizing articles, But that article needs to be redirected. Dudeperson176123 (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Dudeperson176123 (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "ferry highway" does not exist, so it's not a valid search term nor a valid article subject. That means that iit doesn't need to be redirected anywhere. Imzadi 1979 → 01:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Route 4 Connector for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Route 4 Connector 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/Route 4 Connector until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Deb (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BRD cycle of editing

You need to read WP:BRD. It's not an official policy, but it is a very good way to handle editing.

In short:

Bold: you can be bold in adding or changing content. That does not mean your changed will be well received. If they aren't, someone may...
Revert: they may revert your changes to the article. This is a sign that they disagree with either what you added, how you added it, or something else. At this point, if you believe your changes should be incorporated in some way, it is time to...
Discuss: open a discussion on the article's talk page. Maybe the other person likes the information to be added, but disagrees with the location in the article or the way it is formatted. Perhaps your change broke something in the article that needed to be fixed. Maybe you're trying to add something inappropriate to the article. Either way, you'll never know until you start a dialog. However, if you just reinsert your changes, that's edit warring, and that's bad. You can be blocked for edit warring. Imzadi 1979 → 16:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhode Island 4 Connector.jpeg

Please stop uploading useless content such as this photo. I would advise tagging it with a {{db-g7}} template so that it can be deleted. I would also recommend reading the other pieces of advice posted on this talk page. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhode Island 626.jpeg is the same. Please, DO NOT continue to make these graphics. We have templates to create proper highway marker graphics using the proper DOT specifications. You can request missing graphics at WP:USRD/STF/R, the requests page for USRD's Shields Department. Imzadi 1979 → 15:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Central Turnpike (Rhode Island)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Central Turnpike (Rhode Island). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rhode Island Route 101. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rhode Island Route 101 – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Westroopnerd (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

File:Map.RI626.jpeg is a copyright violation. You cannot just photograph your computer screen showing Google Maps to make a map for an article! There are serious legal implications to copying items from websites with copyright notices. Imzadi 1979 → 16:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Highways in Nunavut. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 16:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Map.RI626.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:Map.RI626.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Imzadi 1979 → 16:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC) That to be deleted so accually thanks! Dudeperson176123 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Detour Interstate 95 (New England)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Detour Interstate 95 (New England) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Imzadi 1979 → 16:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rhode Island Route 626

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Rhode Island Route 626, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. –Fredddie ™ 22:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Douglas Turnpike for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Douglas Turnpike 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/Douglas Turnpike until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August and September 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated creation of inappropriate content (articles and images, including copyright violations). Your lack of response to any feedback and your repeated refusal to stop your disruptive editing suggests that you are not here to contribute in a beneficial manner. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kinu ^t/_c 03:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dudeperson176123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I should be unblocked and have learned my lesson I will only create 1 or 2 articles a month

Decline reason:

Per WP:COMPETENCE.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of articles you create is not relevant. The content is. So far virtually all of the articles you have created, mostly about minor and insignificant roads, have been deleted, merged or redirected, and this cannot go on. If unblocked, what do you intend to write about? Hint - writing in the same vein will not be accepted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking administrator, given the lack of constructive editing and the sockpuppetry/block evasion, I don't believe an unblock would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinu: I have not promised unblock, merely posed a question.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: Indeed; my comment was directed at Dudeperson. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its Dudeperson176123 not Dudeperson! Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be better off worrying about the crux of your unblock request rather than about other editors choosing not to post the unwieldy string of random numbers in your username. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dudeperson176123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think you should unblock me for at least 24 hours

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dudeperson176123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked I was creating to many images and articles that did not fit the English Wikipedia and I learned that lesson Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is clear from this request that you do NOT understand why you were blocked. The number of articles you created is not relevant. The fact that nearly all of them were either articles about non-notable roads, breaches of copyright law or duplicates of existing articles is the critical issue; and this you Have failed to understand in spite of many warnings and three failed unblock requests. In my opinion competence issues preclude your unblock here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dudeperson176123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have asked several times I want to be unblocked because I created some good pages like Branford Connector and New London Pike so do you want to make me give up and retire? Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dudeperson176123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay I understand why I was blocked... I was making vandalizing edits to the English Wikipedia As you see above “You only live a short life” is some things you can use to know I want to be unblocked in less than a year so I mind as well maybe retire if this reason doesn't pass. Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That still doesn't give an indication that you understand the problems with your past edits, or what you'd do differently to avoid them in the future. Huon (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dudeperson176123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand 4 failed unblock requests. I understand I was making repeated creations of copyright violations. but I still think I will get better, I may create Jacksonville Airport Road, Connecticut River Scenic Byway, Westminster Highway, Disney: Two More Eggs and Manitoba-Nunavut Road Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (Chat?) 11:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reading though the material that lead to your last block, and the subsequent conversation below, it seems fairly clear that you have no idea why you are blocked and would immediately resume the poor edits that prompted this action. As this is the sixth request, and it does not seem to be improving, I'm going to remove your access to this page. Any other administrator is free to reverse this if they're seeing something I'm missing, but this looks like a time sink for our volunteers. Kuru (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just a comment from a non-admin, but I don't know that your latest request will be successful either. I would seriously suggest that you take a break and remove the request. Give things a few days at least before you restore the request. Let the situation cool down, or some admin is liable to remove talk page access, and you won't be able to make any new requests.

The first of those three proposed articles certainly should meet the notability requirements. Since you can't currently edit or create drafts, what I'd suggest is that you start a new section here on your talk page. In that section, I would list the sources you plan to use for the article with a one- or two-sentence comment on what that source will reference in the future article. This shouldn't be anything too detailed, just a brief sketch to prove that the topic meets our notability guidelines. Then when you do make a new request in a few days, or a few weeks, you'll be able to show us that you've got a grasp on the basics. An admin is more likely to view a new request favorably then. Imzadi 1979 → 12:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes comments are worthless yours was (partially) I want the make those articles Wikipedia at least needs Connecticut River Scenic Byway Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (Chat?) 18:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your sixth (and last) unblock request While there doesn't seem to be any issue regarding good faith on your part, you clearly don't understand what is and what is not inappropriate in terms of article creation, highlighted by your announced intention to create Dudeperson (disambiguation) in article space. The only way I can imagine you being unblocked any time soon is if you agree to stop creating articles and using the articles for creation process instead until you have a clear enough comprehension of Wikipedia policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For how long 3 months a half year? Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (Chat?*) 19:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC) *Is my Chat? lamer than this?[reply]

"indefinite [adj.] 1. Without limit; forever, or until further notice; not definite". You have an indefinite block. There is no pre-determined period when it would end. Instead, it will end when you've demonstrated that you understand the reasons for your block, that you've learned from the situation, and that your future contributions would not have those same issues present. I don't think we've reached that point yet.

I suggested above that you basically create a short annotated bibliography for articles you'd like to create. My idea was that you could demonstrate some working knowledge of the types of sources that show the notability of an article. For a topic to have an article, it needs to be notable in our Wikipedia sense. the General Notability Guideline (GNG) is a great starting point. That guideline says that we need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.

You mentioned a scenic byway article that you wanted to create. That would be a good topic for an article because there should be tour guides and newspaper articles about the byway in addition to maps. Those are the types of sources we need to demonstrate notability for a stand-alone article. If you want to create new articles, that's what you need, or else the articles we will have the same issues as before.

Instead of taking my suggestion, you've created infoboxes for more minor roads that fail to individually meet notability. If you were unblocked and created those as separate articles, they would be deleted or redirected. That's the same situation that earned you the block. These minor connector roads just do not warrant articles, but you don't seem to get that. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think those are bad infoboxes you can remove them if you like.Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Highway

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Central Pike (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Central Pike (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KJ^Discuss? 10:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked to long

I am started to notice I have been blocked for almost a month! I hope I get unblocked soon Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely. You'll have to make a request to be unblocked, because the block has no defined end date. That request will not be successful unless you can demonstrate that you have learned from the situation(s) that prompted your block. Given that you were blocked for WP:CIR-based reasons, I do not know that you can demonstrate such growth and maturity, as well as such new-found knowledge, in just a month's time. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do a request I have been on for a month only on the Wikipedia? Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The directions are in the block notice above. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated bibliography suggestion

Let me reiterate my suggestion. As you have probably noticed by now, I've removed all of your infoboxes and other content for future articles. The suggestion was for you to make a brief annotated bibliography for each article you'd like to create if unblocked. The suggestion was not to write articles, or create the content for those articles. Also, you can't put the stub templates on your talk page without categorizing your talk page as a stub.

In short: if you were to create a new article, what sources would you use, and would what they cite? If the topic doesn't have enough sources of the right kinds, that article would be deleted or redirected. If you can't demonstrate that you understand this basic aspect of our policies and guidelines, you will not be unblocked. Imzadi 1979 → 13:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks I don't want people knowing about me sorry D: Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (Chat?) 15:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion has nothing to do with you personally. For example, if I were going to create an article about the Connecticut Rivery Scenic Byway, I'd start with this webpage from the FHWA and its subpages. That establishes that it's a Nationa Scenic Byway, which is a pretty special and notable classification to start. Then I'd probably expand upon that with this official webpage. There's a half dozen more available on a simple Google search, and that's before looking for an newspaper articles to establish the history of the designation. Imzadi 1979 → 23:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked from editing articles. You shouldn't be attempting to evade that block by creating drafts of article content here on the only page you can edit. I invited you to use this space in a limited capacity to demonstrate you have an understanding of the sorts of research and sources needed to demonstrate notability. If the articles you were to create in the future weren't up to those basic standards, your creations would just continue to be deleted or redirected. Since you don't seem to be willing to follow the limits of that suggestion, I think that it might be time that I rescind that suggestion. Any additional infoboxes or article content added to your talk will be summarily removed by me. Imzadi 1979 → 19:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of you are not letting me think fine! But please create Connecticut River Scenic Byway after you've finished your research I am not sure how you are going to find newspapers about Vermont and New Hampshire because I read both your user page and your talk page.

Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (Chat?) 19:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an idea okay? Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have similarly removed the content here on "Accessways". Given this, you clearly haven't figured out that Wikipedia isn't for things that you've made up. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Okay I read it Dudeperson176123 (I am a dude) (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never offered to do the research. I just did a single Google search and had three good sources that I located in 30 seconds of work. Another search at http://news.google.com/ through their Archives could turn up some additional newspaper sources, depending on which newspapers they have archived. There are other websites or libraries out there that could have appropriate sources to be used. My user and user talk pages will offer you no assistance in locating these.

In short: if you're not willing to do research, you should not be creating articles around here. Imzadi 1979 → 23:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]