User talk:Matthh7

We have a guideline called WP:BRD, which is short for "Bold, revert, discuss". In short, your original addition of the future I-41/I-43/I-894 concurrency was Bold (as our other philosophy says, to be bold in editing), but it was reverted. The next course of action should be to discuss the situation, which is why we have Talk:Concurrency (road), or our user talk pages. The idea is that constantly reverting back and forth with content is a bad thing; in fact we call that edit warring, and it's something you can be blocked from editing for doing.

In this case, Concurrency (road) has been overrun over the years with too many examples. We've been trying to keep the article easy to read by using a single example in most cases. The fact that there are only two 3-way Interstate concurrencies means each is very rare, and it's ok to put both together earlier in the article. However, your last variation of the content lower in the article was very poorly worded, and it wasn't necessary to illustrate the concept that a concurrency could involve three directions. (We're still looking for a case with four, and if found, the three-way one would be removed.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my example of a three dimensional triple interstate concurrence is better than the existing one. I didn't wanted to delete their example even though I believe mine is better, because it is three interstates rather than three basic highways. Also, it was just elaborating on an existing example by making it better. This article is already full of examples, my addition was small and not really noticeable, but still relevant. If I just made another example of a three directional concurrence using another set of basic highways I could see where you're coming from, but this was unique, and with my second edit I attached to the above example instead of adding another independent one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthh7 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing magical about Interstates that makes I-41/I-43/I-894 any better than US 20/IL 47/IL 72. The one already illustrates how a driver could be on a southbound roadway that carries two more different signed directions at the same time. Imzadi 1979 → 04:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that it was worth mentioning because it is the occurrence of two rare events. Having a triple interstate concurrence is rare, it is also rare to have a three-directional concurrency, which is why I thought this was a good example because it an occurrence of two rare events. I didn't mean to say that interstates are magically better than regular highways, or to belittle the existing example, I just wanted to add something constructive and different.Matthh7 (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)matthh7[reply]

Hi Matthh7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]