User talk:NE2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] AWB, category sorting
hi there, does category sorting in AWB finally works for you? you posted a problem here [1] but in the newest version it still seems to break for example [[Kategoria:Argentyna| ]] to [[Kategoria:Argentyna|Argentyna]] --gregul talk
- I haven't tried recently. Sorry. --NE2 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hideaway Park, Colorado
Why are you wasting both our time on this? If you like redirect, else I will Afd. --meatclerk 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Do that. I know what the result will be - merge and redirect. --NE2 05:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] River LINE (New Jersey Transit)
Let's get together at the talk page for the above article and decide on a title. We seem to be in an edit war that is creating multiple double redirects. Let's resolve this quickly. Alansohn 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] River LINE station articles
I've reverted your addition of Category:Pennsylvania Railroad stations to the River LINE station articles. The River LINE stations are only a few years old, and all were created long after the PRR stopped operating. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad
Sorry about that; I should be more careful about checking edit summaries in the future. You were right to remove it if it's causing serious technical problems. Is there a way to link the image (which is very useful and illustrative) without including it inline? --CComMack (t–c) 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Edit to Osceola Parkway
I was making other edits to the article, so I did it anyway. Was it necessary to edit the article just to reconnect the SR links to redirects? I think the WP:USSH guideline only applies if that's the only edit you are making. If you have another substantial edit to make to the article, then why not fix the links while you're at it? It saves Wikipedia's precious bandwidth not having to click a link to go through two or more different pages before your destination. I don't think the average Wikipedian is going to care what the piped link links to as long as the text that is after the pipe remains the same.
While I agree that making edits solely to "fix" piped links is a waste, I don't think it's wrong to do it during a more substantial addition of information to an article. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Florida State Road 429
Any changes I made/make to Wikipedia articles are done in good faith. You may not have liked my wording but I don't appreciate what I added being called a "hatchet job". You made updates today regarding the new section opening to I-4 yet you left errors behind yourself, which I fixed. Unless you're perfect, please give constructive criticism rather than name-calling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KINGBOBOFTHENORTH (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Virginia State Route 234
Alrighty. I was just going with the most approriate syntax i could think of at the time. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LIRR
On the talk:Atlantic Branch page I've asked you to source the name. Jd2718 01:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for refs. The first, I rolled my eyes, I know new managers make up names. But the track schematics... those have to go back. I have to admit I have always had much more subway and MNCRR stuff than LIRR. Good catch on Rail Road, btw. Jd2718 02:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I saw and partially reverted your changes on the Palsgraf article. While I do not doubt that you are correct in the name of the railroad, the page is about the case, and we should use the case name acually used by the New York Court of Appeals. The court's website uses the term "Railroad"[2] and on the basis of that I changed the bolded title of the case and its name in the table. Since doing that (and the prior version of my comments here) I have been doing some more research, and I have found references to the "Rail Road" usage as well. What we really need is for someone to look up the case as reported (in the NE reporter or state reporter) to get the actual name, and conform the article title, and the wikipedia cross-references, to that format. I placed such an inquiry at Talk:Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. If you want to discuss, let's do it on that talk page. Thanks. Kablammo 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Kablammo 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PRR naming
Could you be a little more clear about what you mean by "official name"? The material in the CT1000 is, I suppose, as good as anything as far as being official, even if some branches are named "X Track" or "X Railway" rather than "X Branch". Choess 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Baxter's Bus Lines
It is extremely poor form to simply remove a deletion proposal. There is a process in place. If you have something to contribute to a deletion debate, add it on the talk page and help form a consensus. If you're just out to save public transport-related articles from the axe, why not give us a hand over here? Joestella 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I owe you an apology. I was expecting the afd tag to be added in its place, but now I see that this is not required. No hard feelings? Joestella 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Boxes
I think it's all fixed now. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyrights
Holy bleep. I had no idea the Centennial History had gone out of copyright. What I find more interesting is that "The Pennsylvania Railroad Company; Corporate, Financial, and Construction History of Lines Owned, Operated and Controlled to December 31, 1945 (4 vol.), prepared by Coverdale and Colpitts, consulting engineers" is not in there, either (unless I'm screwing up the search). That would be a real coup to get online — the Centennial History was written by employees of C&C, but the 4-volume work covers the entirety of the PRR and its development, whereas the Centennial History can be annoyingly erratic in its omissions. Unfortunately, only about 100 copies were printed, and the last time one went on the market that I know of, five years ago, it went for at least $1600. There's a copy at the Hagley, but I don't know that I have the brass to ask Chris Baer for permission to scan the whole thing. Choess 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
