User talk:NE2/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
WPBUS
I have checked your template and it works fine. I am going to remove it from the trains wikiproject template as it was only on it when WP:LT was WikiProject Underground and only focused on trains. Now we cover all aspects of London Transport so we are not technically related. I did give you three warnings over the misuse of our banner. We are only decendants from the London and Transport wikiprojects. Unisouth 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop revewing my articles
You are hard headed. Why did you fail State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) because of little mistakes. This is not a WP:FAC!!!! The article was nominated to become a Good article not a featured article and you failed it because of little grammar problems. -- JA10 T · C 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Two or 3 grammar problems. THIS IS NOT A FAC! -- JA10 T · C 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stop assuming i'm the nominator too, It was problably my brother 512theking from his girlfriends house to get revenge on me. -- JA10 T · C 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not just that, you have something against me! I made 3 good articles after PA 65 and I did it in the same style as SR 1002. In fact, SR 1002 is way better than those GAs. I don't need this crap from you. Next time, someone else can review it, I bet they'll pass it. You still think this a WP:FAC, like the article has to be perfect. Ridiculus. -- JA10 T · C 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stop assuming i'm the nominator too, It was problably my brother 512theking from his girlfriends house to get revenge on me. -- JA10 T · C 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Two or 3 grammar problems. THIS IS NOT A FAC! -- JA10 T · C 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Please assume good faith on JohnnyAlbert10. Although you were commenting on the content, it seemed to him that you were being a bit hard on the content, which he helped to contribute. Please face the facts, he helped improve many PASH articles to GA status, progress that wouldn't have happened if he were not around. In fact, he gave us a wake-up call to improve our articles, since he did that to many articles. If you see any deficiencies to the article in question, could you be willing to fix those problems yourself? On a side note, it seems like the only GA review work you have been doing is reviewing articles that he has helped improve. Again, please assume good faith next time. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but I still don't like the fact that you've only GA reviewed J-A10's articles. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 02:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- V60 brings up a good point but next time let some non-road fan review the article. You could help me out by placing the same or similar suggestions on the peer review. I would also like the appoligize for my rude behavior and I couldn't control my anger when I saw the Afd and the failed GA. Still that's no excuse for the way I acted yesterday, If you could accept my appology we could put this bad moment behind us. -- JA10 T · C 20:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good point I waited for ever for it to be reviewed, lol. Thanks for the fixes, if you want you can give me some advice at the peer review and I could do the work. -- JA10 T · C 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot that you made the Ridge Route an FA. I could work with someone like you for SR 1002. It failed because I worked on it by my self without any help. Your gammar skills would make the article perfect.--JA10 T · C 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good point I waited for ever for it to be reviewed, lol. Thanks for the fixes, if you want you can give me some advice at the peer review and I could do the work. -- JA10 T · C 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- V60 brings up a good point but next time let some non-road fan review the article. You could help me out by placing the same or similar suggestions on the peer review. I would also like the appoligize for my rude behavior and I couldn't control my anger when I saw the Afd and the failed GA. Still that's no excuse for the way I acted yesterday, If you could accept my appology we could put this bad moment behind us. -- JA10 T · C 20:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Puget Sound Transit template
Noticed that you have the Waterfront Streetcar italicized, as if it were under construction. As I understand it, they were just waiting for a new spot to put a barn, and it wasn't really under construction at this time. Is it just the lack of a barn for now that has you doing this? --Dennis The TIger 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A reference was requested for inclusion of Image:villainc.svc. This is a user-created (featured) image, created by User:J.J.. I linked it here because of the description it is given on the page villain, which explicitly connects it with Snidely Whiplash. Should that caption be adjusted, as well? Chubbles 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
SR 1002
this link shows my research and i borrowed a book my neighbor about some history of the highway, please write it in the article, because if I do the article will fail again (I'm a bad writer). --JA10 T · C 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are we ready to write the data in the article?--JA10 T · C 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm going to change the eastern terminus. --JA10 T · C 00:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- That might be difficult to get. I'll certainly try but the quadrants weren't signed until 1987 so SR 1002 was created on 1987 and this dates back to 1930s, so I don't think so. You're one heck of a researcher.--JA10 T · C 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I found this, 1.--JA10 T · C 00:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should focus on organizing that chunk of data on the talk page. I'm going to start working on that.--JA10 T · C 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- For the eastern and western terminus what can be used as reference? -- JA10 T · C 01:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have to go to bed, that info in the talk page gave me a headache and It was very confusing to me. Tomorrow we can start organizing this information, thank you for all your help. --JA10 T · C 01:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- For the eastern and western terminus what can be used as reference? -- JA10 T · C 01:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should focus on organizing that chunk of data on the talk page. I'm going to start working on that.--JA10 T · C 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I found this, 1.--JA10 T · C 00:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- That might be difficult to get. I'll certainly try but the quadrants weren't signed until 1987 so SR 1002 was created on 1987 and this dates back to 1930s, so I don't think so. You're one heck of a researcher.--JA10 T · C 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm going to change the eastern terminus. --JA10 T · C 00:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| For your tireless research and great contributions to State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania), I award you this barnstar. JA10 T · C 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) |
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article New York City transit fares, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. AEMoreira042281 15:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 7
   The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 7 | 5 May 2007 | About the Newsletter | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Tilghman Street and Union Blvd.
Now that the article is moved, the west and eastern terminus should change since we're not talking about SR 1002 anymore. Do we need to write about the entire length of Union Boulevard too? There's lots to do with this article. --JA10 T · C 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverted move
Replied at my talk. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 03:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
42nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line)
See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#42nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line). Anthony Appleyard 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposal: Reduce linking in lead paragraph of Grand Army Plaza
Hi NE2. You're a recent contributor to this article; I believe we last exchanged notes concerning when the plaza assumed its present name, and you furnished a link to the New York Times archive (thanks!). I'm proposing trimming some of the linkage in the lead, with the discussion here. Also, as always, any other comment on the article's composition, and areas of improvement you may care to entertain. Thank you again for your help. Take care! Gosgood 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposals
If a proposal gathers no feedback, that is an indication that (1) it wasn't advertised, or (2) nobody much cares about it. Pages with no activity are marked as "inactive" as a matter of convenience. If you want the page to be active, it would help if you were to advertise it; merely removing the inactivity marker will not magically cause the page to become active. >Radiant< 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Template:TWP
Got it. A couple of parser functions weren't doing what I thought they would do, but I got it working in my test area so the change is now live. The unknown-importance category should start repopulating soon. Slambo (Speak) 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't look at me...
I didn't remove SR 1002 from the GAC page, Johnny did, I recommended that he might not want to wait around again for it to become a GA if he has the time to just go for FA status instead, or get a PR :/. I mean, copyediting was basically the biggest concern in the GA/R, and I dunno what waiting around for another GA review would really solve or help with. Homestarmy 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
source
I found this 1. Read paragraph 7, does it have anything to do with the discussion? -- JA10 T · C 06:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
My departure
I'll probably back in time. Think of it as more of a semi-permanent wikibreak. I may check in as an IP from time to time, and if/when I come back, it will probably be under a different username (which may or may not be through a formal change). I'll take a look at the FAC (I've already glanced at it once), but I'm not sure I'll have much to say. -- NORTH talk 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
US 9 (NY)
In that image caption, it was referring to the 1 (New York City Subway service) running over US 9. I've removed the part where it says that the US 9/NY 9A concurrency is the first on the route. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 06:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is the caption better now? V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 06:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- GA passed. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 07:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This really needs to be solved.
NE2, what is the matter with you? Instead of trying to improve the 1 train article, you just keep adding tags, which I believe is just a spiteful move to bring others down. I noticed you edited the train article before, couldn't you just take the time to fix the thing? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I've also had it with your short answers, as seen at the subway infobox discussion. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia again, as you did to 1 (New York City Subway service), you will be blocked for vandalism. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Just please work with others in a good way. Before making any major changes to an article, talk it out with the other members. Thank You The Legendary Ranger 22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No, none of the "other roads" are county maintained. They're merely noteworthy local roads within Suffolk County. Perhaps I should add Sheep Pasture Road to that list, not to mention Hawkins Avenue, Old Town Road and maybe even Roe Boulevard. ---- DanTD 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I had a different idea, though; Renaming that chapter Noteworthy non-County Roads in Suffolk, or something of that nature. ---- DanTD 15:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 8
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 8 | 19 May 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||
| ||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 19:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Revert to Rockville
I fully support reverts based on policy and guidelines, but I don't see how it applies here. The links are red, no? Are you saying that you are creating the pages and they will soon exist? If so, then it would be better to link to those articles once you have started them. Best, nadav (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- If that were the practice, I would have to look through every link to Washington streetcars every time I made a new article. --NE2 12:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Washington Streetcars Response
Sorry, I don't know the answer to that. Finding info on the A&PR has been especially difficult. [[Volcycle 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)]]
Technical names for lines
What will this be? I'm somewhat intrigued, because it sounds like something where I can be a lot of help. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved comment
I moved your most recent comment on my talk page to Talk:List of WMATA Metrobus routes. Your comment is more of a general article comment, and not so much about me, thus it would be better placed there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Think you can create a documentation page for Template:NYCS time 2, seeing that you are the original creator? --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 12:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I still see a mess at List of NYC stations at East 180th Street. I still think if Template:NYCS row is cleanly substituted into the list, the Pre-expand include size will be reduced better than if Template:NYCS time 2 is edited. In my editing of Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Lines, the Pre-expand include size is going down nicely with my substitutions of table formatting templates. Tinlinkin 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The code seems to work fine and I can see List of NYCS stations correctly. The pre-expand size there is still big, but at least manageable. Tinlinkin 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Tag White House Complex for merge
Hi NE2, were you going to begin a discussion on the merge you tagged? I went to the link in the merge tag but found no discussion. Would you please offer your reasoning somewhere? Thanks. CApitol3 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi NE2. I guess not obvious to me, and the tag ofers a link to a non-existent discussion. The complex is not the White House. Yes, associated, but explains the components. Adding the illustration to an already extemely long article (White House) doesn't quite make sense to me. Thanks. Jim CApitol3 17:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi NE2. Would you be willing to present this argument in discussion form where the link in the tag takes users? Thanks. I am of a different opinion and would like to repsond wherever this discussion is supposed to take place. I expet few users will find it on either of our discussion pages. Thanks. Jim CApitol3 17:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- So, you're willing to tag something for merging, but unwilling to discuss. Hmm. CApitol3 18:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- NE2, in previous aricles tagged for a merge, I've followed a link to a duscussion begun by the person believing the articles should be merged. I was hoping you would present your argument in a public forum, not intending an argument, but a discussion. Jim CApitol3 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- So, you're willing to tag something for merging, but unwilling to discuss. Hmm. CApitol3 18:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirects
You too have bypassed several redirects as well; I've checked your contributions page.
I don't think you should be hypocritical by doing something and then objects when someone else does the same thing. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Listen man, we have been feuding for a long time, and what I'm trying to do is help you be a better contributor on Wikipedia. How long have you been around? Long enough to understand that there a lot of people who back down to you because you drive them away with a lot of controversial edits you make? That's what I think, but I don't want to think about you that at all. You're a good editor man, but you must learn that you cannot always make a choice without seeking consensus from the community. It's good to be bold, but please don't be reckless. And that is how a lot of your edits turn up when no consensus is made, and then a lot of cleaning up is required because of that. Believe me, I myself wasn't so perfect back in the day, but I learned how to form a consensus, I learn to work with others, and the result in the end is having a good article that everyone likes and agrees with. A lot of people have issues with you, and I just want to let you know that while I am one of those people, I don't want to be. If I have to be the only one to step up to the plate and help you change your ways, so be it, but remember, I am here to here to help. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read any single thing I just wrote? Please read it, okay? From one Wikipedian to another, I am trying to help you become a better Wikipedian. You won't if you backlash with renegade comments. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Proof that you too have bypassed redirects, which is also recent: [1] It goes to show that you shouldn't tell others not to get rid of a redirect when you too do the same thing. --–Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 14:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Your dispute with Imdanumber1
I'm sorry to see two Wikipedians arguing incessantly. I've put some thoughts on my talk page. Although I've retired from editing, perhaps I can help find a middle ground. I'm putting the identical note on both of your talk pages. Should you care to continue the dialog, please do so on my talk page, as I won't be checking anywhere else. Marc Shepherd 00:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
3RR
Please refresh yourself with the Wikipedia policy on WP:3RR. Your recent edit war on 1 (New York City Subway service) has brought you into conflict with this policy. I have protected the article to stop further edit waring on both sides. Please discuss your position on the talk page and reach consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, then seek dispute resolution. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
NYC Subway edit conflicts
re: this, 1 (New York City Subway service) and
Posting help requests to a How to Help type page is the wrong way to approach a content dispute. Better to follow the project links from the talk pages. Nonetheless, I can help some as an WP:AMA member, but I have to warn you, I'm usually strictly neutral in such affairs, and as the "unhelpfulness" implicit in the name "" struck me badly, so much so that I was tempted to refer it to WP:RFD and I've already stated an opinion or two on that redirect and the page in general that you may not like. Still, I can referee a bit if you like or intercede and present your case to the person you are fighting with.
- Haven't checked your contribs out, but from the question, have to guess you're still learning the ropes around here, and that I can certainly help you with as well, and will be glad to do that. Do so all the time as a member of the Wikipedia Welcoming Committee. (See WP:WC & WP:Wc). Note, I tried to tidy up THAT article some, but it needs more TLC than I have time for and I may have messed up the section title I did rename (check me ASAP!)... besides I'm located outside O'Boston and writing about anything in NYC (headlined in the Boston Herald the other day as the "Evil Empire"') would be pretty ironic (especially as a sports fan!!!) <BSEG> Still, I'm willing. (I once married a de facto New Yowrker from Hackensack! <g>)
- The First thing, realize changing redirects to direct links is part of guidelines when it actually helps comprehension by other editors. A name like "1 BTM' may mean something locally, but that's because it occurs within a context people can relate to, but folks in Albany or Buffalo or Syracuse are likely to say "What????" if you used the term... so that's unencyclopediac on the face of that alone. So regarding your revert war, the initial impression to any veteran editor is you are 'whining' about something that SHOULD be done --especially for such local names which the rest of the world will never relate to in any way. At best one might consider using it as a pipe trick to display in the article one time. Better, place in after some full name reference in parentheses--which I recommend as the treatment at the begining here. So on that redirect, I strongly suggest you wipe the page and add
{{db-author|A local Name too obscure to keep, my bad~~~~}}to the page (or the like) with a link to my suggestion on this here to satisfy the admin that it's okay with me.
- The 'other' and real important First thing is to stop reverting. That should be a tool strictly used for vandalism, as it's a huge conflict escalator. Why? When you revert someone it's equivalent to slapping a person in their face; a second as if spitting first, then sucker punching them, and a third, means you're both drawing swords! So last resort action, not, definitely not a daily tool. Best never used at all, save for the barbarian vandals!
- Unless you're into big tasks and daunting challenges, I suggest finding the WikiProject New York articles and dropping a talk note that these need some help. That should draw some old editors back into the fold, and maybe a few new ones. Munching all that sort of dry historical data by yourself is pretty unrewarding work... best to have a few collaborators you can talk to about this or that. Great way to learn things too.
Let me know where you want to go from here. If you tell Joel you didn't realize why the redirects were less desirable, and tell him you're working it out now and won't be reverting it again, he'll likely be willing to unlock the article. My email works fine if you want to pursue questions or something else, and you can reach me direct via that (which addy is posted) on my talk page. I actually prefer that--at least the editor is WYSIWYG! Best regards! I know this wasn't the "help" you expected, but, heck--we all stub our toes now and then! Cheers! // FrankB 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Well, now that I've seen your contribs, heck if I'm going to rephrase... But where in the heck is the proper {{R from historic name}} or {{R from alternate name}}, etc. and so forth tagging in all the redirects you were working yesterday! // FrankB 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
NYC Subway
re yer query: NYC Subway
- Actually there are two relevant guidelines here:
- Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping, specifically "This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not. For example, in Delta (disambiguation), a link to the redirect term Delta Quadrant would be preferred over its target, Galactic quadrants (Star Trek)."
- Actually there are two relevant guidelines here:
- Actually, I was just "In" the first you listed, but the reason that I'm surprised, and that others may be changing such is the old way was the opposite. Might be interesting to see when and how recently that nugget changed. Personally, I can live with redirects so long as they're categorized, so the 'new way' is agreeable to me. I create my share of redirects to historic terms.
- The trouble with BMT is does it mean Bowel Movement Twice (if you've had a baby, you'll relate REALLY! to that one!) or something else. There needs be some context for people to grasp such acronyms, and as a title, that means they should be avoided. If NYC is using abbreviations as does our MBTA, it presents some problems, but this kind of naming is usually schemed out together in a WikiProject page (to dodge adroitly!). Naw -- I have opinions -- just don't recollect what BMT means. Ok -- so go long, like Joe Willy Namath. "Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation 12 train"... or line or whatever specifically that means. Corp. would be acceptable to me, but some would say no to that, so avoid such reworking and just hold yer nose and stay long. Really, the project group can usually make such decisions stick, so I'd hammer it out on the project page and use whatever. "BMT Corp. 12" would be better as a redirect, as it gives some context. From what I can see though, much of the problem will vanish if you all tone down the overuse of links to the recommended once per article page. BMT 12 in text has context within the article, so long as "Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation (BMT)" appears up high. Hope that makes sense. // FrankB 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the correct "long name" for BMT 2 should be 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation service). This would be totally clear, and would mirror the article naming conventions for the current NYC Subway services, e.g., 1 (New York City Subway service). Marc Shepherd 12:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 9
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 9 | 9 June 2007 | About the Newsletter | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)