User talk:Ncchild

Hey, there! A bit of advice on Google Map references. Like I have done to North Carolina Highway 231, you can export a set of driving directions from Google Maps using the link button and then paste that URL to the |url= parameter in {{google maps}}. If you have any questions about this or anything else concerning road articles, you can ask me or hop onto IRC, where there are many road editors willing to help you. Thanks, TCN7JM 22:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncchild! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you for creating the page. These towns would otherwise be forgotten, and they so often have rich and important histories. Take care. Richard Apple (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing! ~ Anastasia (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for permission to make Interstate 26 in North Carolina. I believe today's information is sufficient and can be used to make a B class article. Because this is a redirect currently I am asking permission of someone from the US Roads WikiProject--Ncchild (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and create it! You do not need permission to create an article. TCN7JM 02:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fixing some formatting errors on the article, and this is your notice that after this, I will no longer quietly do so on your articles.

1. Section headings are done in "Sentence case", not "Title Case". You're probably familiar with how newspaper headlines capitalize most words. That's title case, and Wikipedia doesn't do that for headings. In other words, we use "Route description", not "Route Description".
2. The direction labels in the infobox need to be capitalized. Otherwise it will say "south end:" when it should say "South end:" etc.
3. The first sentence of the article should list the topic in bold, which in this case is "Interstate 26". After that should be the abbreviation in parenetheses, so "(I-26)". Note that the abbreviation is in bold, but the parentheses around it are not. Also note the hyphen in the Interstate abbreviation, which you forgot to include.
4. All American measurements should be converted so the metric appears. I use {{convert}} and {{convert/spell}} for that.
5. Geographic borders are not proper nouns, so "state line" or "border" or "county line" are not capitalized.
6. You should not be using Google Street View for general RD sources; specific signs, yes, but not the whole RD.
7. Place names should be wikilinked on first usage. Please go back through the RD for that, ok?
8. The section of the article containing a table of all of the interchanges along a freeway is called "Exit list", and "list" is never capitalized in "Exit list" or "Junction list" headings.
9. Galleries are normally not included in articles. Just use the photos in the article where there is room, or use the Commons link (like I fixed) in the "External links" section
10. Please watch which homophone you use. "Its" is possessive", and "it's" is a contraction for "it is" or "it was". "Their" is possessive as well, and a different word from "there".

I hope this helps, but this is the last time I remind you about your incorrect or inappropriate usage of capital letters. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry is there a problem because "I hope this helps, but this is the last time I remind you about your incorrect or inappropriate usage of capital letters" sounds like there is--Ncchild (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 7, Issue 1 • Winter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features 2013 in review The Moon is rising: our Lua progress so far Looking ahead to 2014 The Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news in brief Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, OH, PA, UT, WA, and WV
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifications are there to get an article from good to featured. I was thinking to doing it for North Carolina Highway 2A

While it's great to set goals, I think we should focus on fundamentals before getting serious about taking articles to FAC. I signed up for an account in 2005, but I never even considered taking anything to GAN for five years. Once I got the hang of the GA level, only then did I start looking seriously at FAC. –Fredddie™ 03:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My account was registered in 2005, and my first GAN attempt wasn't until 2007. My first successful GA didn't come until 2008, and I didn't attempt an FAC until later that year. Before FAC, I had two articles go through ACR to get a feel for the stricter requirements. In short, people have to learn to crawl before they can walk and before they can run. Destub articles first, then GAN them, then ACR them, then FAC them. If you rush to FAC before you are ready, you will fail, and the nomination will likely be closed in hours, not days. Something else to remember, only about 0.1% of all articles are FAs. That's a high bar to meet. Imzadi 1979 → 03:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to remind you that we have an IRC channel where we discuss the roads projects among other things. It's #wikipedia-en-roads ^connect and it's usually full of USRD regulars. There, you can bounce ideas off of us and we can give you instant feedback, rather than being shot down on WT:USRD. We'd also like to get to know you a little better. That way, we can find out what your strong suits are to help build your confidence as an editor. Please, join us. –Fredddie™ 01:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you type things?--Ncchild (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 102 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 Imzadi1979 -- Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 102 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:North Carolina Highway 102 for comments about the article. Well done! |2ndopinion|2ndopinion=Hello, I want to tell you that I need a 2nd opinion on whether the article you nominated as a good article, North Carolina Highway 102, meets the good article criteria or not . Another experienced reviewer like me will look at the article and see if the issue that I need a 2nd opinion on can go through or not. See Talk:North Carolina Highway 102 for the issue. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Imzadi1979 -- Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

&ndash

The editors of The Center Line, the quarterly newsletter of the U.S. Roads WikiProject are asking if you, as an editor new to USRD, would be willing to answer three quick questions for an interview featurette in our next issue.

1. What article(s) are you working on these days?
2. What is your short-term goal for the article(s)? Long-term?
3. What is your favorite highway?

The space to answer these can be found at WP:USRD/NR#New editor interviews. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Under a moonlit (and lightning-quick) sky: Lua, , and what's next The new and improved HWY Cup Making shields 101 The Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news in brief Five years ago... A chat with our newest USRD members
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Interstate 40 in North Carolina 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Interstate 40 in North Carolina you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Interstate 40 in North Carolina 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 68 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 Neonblak -- Neonblak (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 68 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:North Carolina Highway 68 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Neonblak -- Neonblak (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There a reference error that was created and then "fixed" by a bot. Looks like a dead link, not sure if it was a vital link to the article.Neonblak ^talk - 20:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 7, Issue 3 • Summer 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The U.S. Roads Portal: A great gateway to the project HWY Cup a success in improving the articles of WikiProject Highways	State and national updates None submitted
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979, 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 68 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:North Carolina Highway 68 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 Neonblak -- Neonblak (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 7, Issue 4 • Fourth Quarter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Maple Syrup Report Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The U.S. Roads Project Is Turning 10! 2014: The Year in Review Setting the bar for 2015	State and national updates CA, DE, MD, MI, MS, MP, OR Project news
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 8, Issue 1 • Winter 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Be part of the turnaround... now become part of the solution Raising the speed limit on KML creation RCS coming for the Texas FM/RM routes The bar is set for 2015	State and national updates CA, DE, MI In other project news...
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 8, Issue 2 • Spring 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Route description 101 The nitty gritty of in-depth research	State and national updates Editor updates In other project news...
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 12:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 8, Issue 3 • Summer 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Road to the past: Some tips on researching history sections Getting to know the editors behind the lenses	State and national updates State updates In other project news...
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 98 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 W5nio -- W5nio (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what led to the erroneous notification above, but the truth is that I have taken up this review since 28 April and you were not notified about it. I would give you a week more to deal with the comments. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 98 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:North Carolina Highway 98 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 54 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 Imzadi1979 -- Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 54 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:North Carolina Highway 54 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Imzadi1979 -- Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HazelAB (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to let you know that routes that only say "Future" such-and-such corridor doesn't make that an actual route. There are exceptions though, with Future I-26 in Asheville (to help connect the gap) and Future I-74 near Hamlet. So unless there are actual guide signs as shown by those exceptions, please refrain from adding "Future" routes in junction lists. Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Washuotaku: I saw your edit on I-440 so I will refrain from using future routes.--Ncchild (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Washuotaku: I traveled to New Bern on Saturday and saw several Future I-42 signs from about Princeton to New Bern. Should we edit the infoboxes or not?--Ncchild (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncchild: Those are reference signs, not guide signs. Until its "official," which can be years away still, the articles should remain status quo. However, that is my opinion, you can ask others. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I recommend merging two pages, since I have seen you edit them both recently, I thought you might have some input on the matter - Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540 Merger Proposal - Jesse Schulman (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 54 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:North Carolina Highway 54 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 Imzadi1979 -- Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Interstate 440 (North Carolina) 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 Fredddie -- Fredddie (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Interstate 440 (North Carolina) 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:Interstate 440 (North Carolina) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Fredddie -- Fredddie (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Interstate 440 (North Carolina) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Interstate 440 (North Carolina) 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 Fredddie -- Fredddie (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ncchild. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for North Carolina Highway 122 at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ncchild -- I have just completed a copy-edit of North Carolina Highway 122. As you will see, I've made a few copy-edits to improve sentence flow and increase clarity. The article is well written. I wouldn't change anything as far as sentence structure now, but I do have one concern. I noticed throughout that you used the phrase "the road" often. You also used "the highway", "the route", and occasionally "the state road". These terms can be confusing and have to be treated carefully.

(a) Sometimes I believe you are using these terms to refer to the same road. Perhaps you did this out of a desire to inject some variety (which is usually a good thing in writing), but if the terms do refer to the same road, I would not use different phrases to refer to the same road. I would select one and stick with it, occasionally using "NC + number" for clarity. If NC 122 is commonly referred to in North Carolina as a road, I would use that phrase. If it is commonly referred to as a highway, I would use that phrase.

(b) Sometimes you mention several different highways/roads in the same paragraph, sometimes going back and forth between them. In this case, using "the road" is confusing. The reader may not know to which one you are referring.

I think I've fixed most instances of ambiguity, but there is one paragraph where you use the phrase "the road" often, and I wonder if you could work on it, perhaps substituting "NC + number" for some of them so that it will be absolutely clear to which road you are referring. That paragraph is the last paragraph of North Carolina Highway 122#Route description. You'll see how many words you've used. I've put into bold the ones that are not clear, and I've numbered them in square brackets ("[1]") so you can refer to them.

• You've also got a singular/plural mis-match here: "As the roads approach an intersection with Shiloh Farm Road (SR 1523), it enters. Do you want to change "it enters" to "they enter", or do you want to change "it enters" to "Mutual Boulevard enters"?
  • @Corinne:The latter--Ncchild (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In this sentence, "Mutual Boulevard roughly parallels the Tar River to the north as it enters a rural area east of Princeville," it is not clear whether "it" (in "it enters") is the boulevard or the river. Also, this sentence kind of interrupts the flow of sentences since the next sentence is really about the two routes that are following (concurrently?) Mutual Boulevard through town. I'm wondering if we should just make that sentence a subordinate adjective clause, "..., which roughly parallels the Tar River to the north as the road/the river enters a rural area east of Princeville, to toward the northeast", or leave it out altogether.
  • Lets go ahead and make it a subordinate adjective clause, but leave out the towards the northeast.--Ncchild (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Crossing over the Tar River, NC 122 exits off of US 64 along with US 258, and heads northeast toward Princeville. The highway[1] meets up with NC 33 (S. Main Street) in the center of town. After NC 111 breaks away in the eastern part of town, US 258 and NC 122 follow Mutual Boulevard to the northeast. Mutual Boulevard roughly parallels the Tar River to the north as it[2] enters a rural area east of Princeville. As the roads [roads? Why roads?][3] approach an intersection with Shiloh Farm Road (SR 1523), it[4] enters a small residential zone, consisting entirely of small homes. Leaving the residential area, the road[5] intersects Howard Road before turning nearly due north. At an intersection with Daniels Street, NC 122 turns right to head northeast toward Speed. The two-lane road[6] continues to run through a mix of forests and farms, passing along the eastern side of Speed. The route[7] continues through the rural mix until reaching the outskirts of Hobgood, where NC 122 becomes the eastern terminus for NC 97 before becoming Pine Street and heading through the center of the town. The highway[8] runs through a residential district of Hobgood before reaching its northern terminus at NC 125 in the commercial district of the town.

• • [1] Highway is the appropriate term for it (I'm pretty sure so that may be fine idk). [2]Like earlier lets change it to Mutual Boulevard. [3-4]Again lets change it to I said earlier. [5-7]Those probably can be changed to either highway or NC 122. 8 is probably fine, but if you don't think so go ahead and change it. Thank you so much for doing this, I really appreciate it!--Ncchild (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this may be a bit confusing. Let me know if anything I have written is unclear to you. If you understand what I'm saying but don't know how to fix it, just clarify for me which route/highway you're referring to for each of the bolded words, above.  – Corinne (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work on it here and then copy and paste the changes into the article:

Revised paragraph

• Crossing over the Tar River, NC 122 exits off of US 64 along with US 258, and heads northeast toward Princeville. The highway meets up with NC 33 (S. Main Street) in the center of town. After NC 111 breaks away in the eastern part of town, US 258 and NC 122 follow Mutual Boulevard, which roughly parallels the Tar River as it enters a rural area east of Princeville. As Mutual Boulevard approaches an intersection with Shiloh Farm Road (SR 1523), it enters a residential zone consisting entirely of small homes. Leaving the residential area, the boulevard intersects Howard Road before turning nearly due north. NC 122 turns right at Daniels Street and heads northeast toward Speed. The two-lane highway continues through a mix of forests and farms, passing along the eastern side of Speed until reaching the outskirts of Hobgood, where it becomes the eastern terminus for NC 97 before becoming Pine Street and heading through the center of town. The highway runs through a residential district of Hobgood before reaching its northern terminus at NC 125 in the commercial district of the town.

Ncchild What do you think of the paragraph now? I have not only changed some words and re-arranged a few things, I've taken out some unnecessarily repetitive phrases, so it is more concise.  – Corinne (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Corinne: I actually really like it! I'll go ahead and place it into the article to save you some effort. Thanks so much again!--Ncchild (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed a copy edit of the I-440 article. Let me know if you have any questions or if I made any errors. Some of the jargon was unfamiliar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article North Carolina Highway 13 (1936-1951) has been completed. Virtually no work was required on my part!

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: Thank You so much!!--Ncchild (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Carolina Highway 42, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corinth, North Carolina. 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) 09:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ncchild. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ncchild -- As you can see, I have finished copy-editing the article. I apologize for taking so long. I was kind of busy. Also, I could only take so much of the article at one time. I'm impressed by your patience in putting together so much detail! If you disagree with any of my edits, please let me know. I certainly do not want to introduce errors into the article, and I'm happy to learn something new.

Besides correcting a few basic errors, in several instances I put what seemed to me to be non-colloquial wording into more colloquial wording. It seems you have a great interest in roads, and I would guess there are others who share your interest and that there may be a kind of jargon that has developed for talking about roads, routing, and construction. I felt that where phrasing did not sound like common, colloquial English, I would modify it slightly so that it would.

For example, I changed "X highway swapped routes with Y highway" to "X highway was swapped with Y highway". To me, swap (informal verb meaning "exchange") is only done by human beings. People swap one thing for another. I didn't see highways swapping things. So I put the verb into passive voice ("was swapped").

Another example is "bypass south of downtown". Bypass is normally a transitive verb, and is normally followed by a noun: "bypass the downtown area", "bypass the city". "Pass" can be either transitive or intransitive. When used intransitively, no noun is needed right after the verb, so you can follow it with a prepositional phrase: "pass to the north of the downtown area", or adverb: "pass just north of the city", etc. When used transitively, a noun would follow: "Pass the city on the north", "Pass the downtown area". So, "bypass on the north" or "bypass to the north" is not really correct (unless you have already mentioned what it is bypassing and it is clear what the noun is) because there is no noun after "bypass". To fix this, you have a choice: you can either add the noun: "bypass the city on the north side", or you can change "bypass" to "pass": "pass on the north side", "pass to the north".

When words like "concurrency" and "bypass" are used as nouns, they normally are countable nouns ("a bypass", two "bypasses"), so I usually added "a" before some of them when they seemed to be singular. Use of these words in an uncountable sense (in which case no "a" would be needed) is unusual, particularly for "bypass". If you see an instance where you think "concurrency" should be used in an uncountable (usually also very general) sense, and I added "a", please point it out to me. Of course, using these words in an uncountable sense may be one aspect of the jargon of roads. Looking back at the article just now, I see that I did not change all of them. "Placed on bypass" or "placed on new bypass" is new wording for me. I had never heard that. To me, "bypass" was always a thing: "a bypass", "a new bypass". Here, you are using it in a sense with which I am not familiar. I think this is part of the road jargon. I don't know whether it should remain like that or be changed to the more familiar "placed on a bypass", "placed on a new bypass".

Sometimes I changed a verb to a synonym just to cut down on the repetition of the same verb and introduce some variety.  – Corinne (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ncchild -- You seem to have an interest in North Carolina, so I thought I'd ask you about this recent edit to French Broad River. While referring to people as "white" is perhaps not the most elegant writing, I'm not sure "English" is completely accurate. What do you think? I tried to look at the references at the bottom of the page, but the Hairr link does not lead anywhere. (Can you fix that?) I was trying to find an authoritative statement about who named the river. If we can't find one, can we just assume it was English settlers, or should we change it back to "white" or some other wording?  – Corinne (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Corinne: It wouldn't be English people who settled along the French Broad, must of the people who settled in western NC were either like Scott-Irish or German. European may be the better term.--Ncchild (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've changed it to "European".  – Corinne (talk) 14:39, 22 October 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) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to provide your input at this discussion regarding references and the Airlines and destinations tables? Thank you! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 122 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 Dough4872 -- Dough4872 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 122 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:North Carolina Highway 122 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dough4872 -- Dough4872 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 122 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:North Carolina Highway 122 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 Dough4872 -- Dough4872 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951) 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 Philroc -- Philroc (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951) 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:North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951) for things which need to be addressed.

The article North Carolina Highway 13 (1935–1951) 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:North Carolina Highway 13 (1935–1951) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Philroc -- Philroc (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951) 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 Philroc -- Philroc (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina 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 North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncchild, do you plan on taking care of the issues at Talk:U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina/GA1? --Rschen7754 03:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Yes, just give me some time because thing's like redoing the route description take a lot of time, and I am having a lot of real life obligations I have to take care at the present moment.--Ncchild (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have to redo the route description, perhaps the nomination should be withdrawn? --Rschen7754 20:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina 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 North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 on 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to let you know I have reversed all your edits and hidden your edits on Interstate 87 (North Carolina) page. The reason is simple, I-87 is still "Future" designation and not official as of yet. It is anticipated that I-495 will be removed in favor of I-87 in the immediate future, but until then we are still at a holding pattern. I also want to note that we will be using "Interstate 87 in North Carolina" article as it conforms with other one and two-digit interstate articles on Wiki.

I appreciate your pro-activeness, but there was justification why I-87 article was not established yet. Please be patient till NCDOT officially signs it on the field (Future signs do not count). Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Washuotaku: I did the edits because per what I saw yesterday, there were multiple I-87 not Future I-87 signs from I-40 to I-540. I will check again tomorrow when I'll be on the route again and I'll see if I can take a picture. No problem with reverting it though, I get that it needs to be official--Ncchild (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was out of town till this evening and I see on Facebook that they are indeed signing replacing I-495 with I-87 and possibly further along too. So we may yet have that article open in the coming days. However, I see no official NCDOT press release on it nor any news organizations reporting it, we will need those sources to indicate that it is indeed established. Just note that the first field reports came today, September 5th, so that would be the established date unless otherwise indicated by NCDOT. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam wrote a blog about the new I-87 shields and how it will be signed and whatnot. Here is the link: Goodbye Interstate 495; Hello Interstate 87. Please note that this is not a valid reference for wikipedia, we still need a press release or news article for confirmation; but at least we can go ahead on exit numbers and whatnot. Remember, we are using "Interstate 87 in North Carolina." --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Washuotaku: I was just about to comment on this. I did a small scouting trip (I take what is now I-87 daily, but went a little past I-540) to see if I-87 went past I-540 which it does, so I can confirm the blog is right with it going to US 264. I think it is a little important to note that it seems, at least for the time being, that I-87 and I-495 are going to coexist, so I don't think it has been completely ruled out yet. All of the I-87 signage is completely supplementary to the I-495 signage which doesn't make much sense but it appears as if the route is still active. Do we still recognize it as such though?--Ncchild (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People have already started editing on the page and I've been trying to correct it. I-495 is decommissioned and we have an news article stating that fact. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Washuotaku: Ok, that's fine, I just wanted to clear it up. Is the ending at Business 64 or Rolesville Road. I know the exits are similar but Wikipedia says Rolesville Road but N&O says 64 Business--Ncchild (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For now I'm going with Rolesville Road because that has a new exit number and is at modern interstate standards. Everything east of that was built is older and not to modern interstate standards, with the worse part being around Nashville. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2017 (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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (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) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U.S. Route 117, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 795.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before you accuse me of posting erroneous information, you should do your research. You are the one who is incorrect about Kittrell College, and I want you to stop altering/deleting my information. The information that I am posting is correct, and this institution is indeed lawfully mine. See North Carolina's corporation page for preliminary details. I will be updating Kittrell College's page with more information related to it, and as its president, I will be overseeing its page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfreeman44 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with the Secretary of State and I do see that you own a registered corporation called Kittrell College Inc. So you are correct with that. But there remains no evidence other than your own word, which is not credible, that Kittrell College is reopening classes under this corporation. It conflicts with the guidelines of WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:SELFPUB. Additionally, you are not entitled to the Kittrell College page either, that's just not how Wikipedia works.--Ncchild (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that I was entitled to the page. I am, however, entitled to update it with current information. Also, I have a DBA for Kittrell College. That is also recorded. You do not see evidence of its classes, but I am not obligated to prove that statement to you. I own the business/college, and I know what is occurring within it. You do not have the right to judge my word as not credible. How are you affiliated with Kittrell College, and by whose authority are you calling my word not credible? I have spent many months rebuilding this school, and I know what is and is not happening with it. All credible information is not found by a Google/internet search. A press release is forthcoming, but until then, this page is being updated by the person who runs this school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfreeman44 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. You are entitled to edit it if you have sources. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. I'm not saying your word isn't credible, I'm saying anyone's word isn't credible at face value. There is theoretically nothing stopping me from going to the Secretary of State tomorrow, creating a corporation called the University of North Carolina at Raleigh Inc., and saying I'm opening a school. It may or may not be happening and no one would take my word on it until it's actually set in stone. The same is happening here. We can't just "take your word for it". Once you have a press release, a website, get into WRAL/ABC 11, something of the sort, the page can be edited. Preferably not by you because of Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest as I've mentioned before. I mean I'll even write it for you if you send it to me. Again this isn't an attack on you. If you really are opening the school kudos to you, it's been a hard year for education so good luck. But right now it just isn't appropriate to edit the page.--Ncchild (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. I am not doing a free for all. I actually do Public Relations and have for decades. I had to have the legal right to incorporate that name, which was a long process. The Sec. of State does not allow anyone to just incorporate and use any name. You could not use the name of an existing school or one close to an existing school. Much of this process has taken place outside of the internet because I am petitioning to have Kittrell College recognized officially in some major areas. I had the website up for months, but I am having it updated and prepped for our PR blitz. Sure, I welcome you editing the page. I don't want to do it. I just want its history to be accurate--which is what I am posting.

We are still working on it, but the preliminary website is www.kittrellcollege.education. Also, we will be mentioned in a major North Carolina magazine in the January 2021 issue. I have the blessing from the president of the Kittrell College's National Alumni Association (Mr. Otis Collins). He has no social media presence, and that has been an issue. Sometimes age barriers hinder social media conquests. I have hired people to assist them, so social media sites will appear soon. A new campus is being established this month, and the old campus has been part of talks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfreeman44 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think it is you who is mistaken. I did not edit the page as some sort of insult to you. I did it because I told you several comments ago that if you got me the source I would edit it for you, so you didn't have to. I stand by what I say and you did your part. Additionally, you indicated that you didn't wish to edit the page if it was not needed ("Sure, I welcome you editing the page. I don't want to do it." 23 December 2020). Personally, I felt that you would like to know that while I was including the new information, I took the time to ensure that this page, your page as you call it, looks up to par. Image is crucial, and that goes for Wikipedia as well as most other things. This mentality that you have, that I, and all other editors on Wikipedia are out to get you, or control you, is a farce of your own imagination. Certainly I did think you were making bad edits at the beginning because they were not sourced and seemed to be a bit of a stretch. But you have proven yourself, we have had this conversation, and I felt that by adding the new information to the page we had moved past that. You are free to edit whatever you would like on Wikipedia, as long as it is factual and you source it. That is not my requirement, it is a Wikipedia requirement which is there to prevent inaccurate information. No one is trying to suppress you here, nor do I think that you need help. You said yourself, you have three degrees from three incredibly distinguished universities. You ARE more than capable, but you indicated you would rather me or someone else do it.--Ncchild (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Interstate 140 (North Carolina) 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Interstate 140 (North Carolina) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Interstate 140 (North Carolina) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 133 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 133 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:North Carolina Highway 133 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 133 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:North Carolina Highway 133 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 403 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 420Traveler -- 420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 132 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North Carolina Highway 231 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 420Traveler -- 420Traveler (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 231 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:North Carolina Highway 231 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 420Traveler -- 420Traveler (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 403 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:North Carolina Highway 403 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 420Traveler -- 420Traveler (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 132 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:North Carolina Highway 132 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Carolina Highway 231 you nominated as a good article has passed