User talk:Imdanumber1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
2006

[edit] En dashes

Wikipedia:Naming conventions recommends hyphens but does allow for dashes (with redirects left, etc.) I figured that the dashes were more semantically correct, but I'm not really attached to them. If you really want the hyphens back, I wouldn't object. Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The end of this section seems to indicate that there's no problem with using dashes for greater precision. *shrug* Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seventh Avenue

I've been aware for years that Seventh Avenue is shared by the IND Sixth Avenue Line and the IND Queens Boulevard Line. However, I strongly disagree with over-relying on Template:Otheruses4 to differentiate between stations. While using "New York City Subway" is the general idea for shared-line stations, I strongly disagree with using it if there is another station with the same name. If Canal Street remains as a single complex, I cannot think of a better name for the article. However, Seventh Avenue station emergency exit signs say "IND Queens Boulevard Line," so it is not inappopriate to use that in the article name. If it said "IND Sixth Avenue Line," I would suggest using that; the point is, there is a place where the station is "assigned" to one line. As long as the actual duality is made clear in the article, I don't see a problem with it. The same dilemma comes up with DeKalb Avenue (BMT Broadway Line), which can be argued to be on the BMT Broadway Line, the BMT Fourth Avenue Line, or the BMT Brighton Line. The emergency exit signs say Broadway, so why not use it? There is another station with the same name (DeKalb Avenue (BMT Canarsie Line)), so it is optimal to avoid using "New York City Subway," which implies that the former station is somehow the "real" subway station, and the other is somehow lesser. Bring it up further on WT:NYCPT if you wish. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll bring it up if you don't want to. Discussion is always best, not edit summary explanations :) Larry V (talk | e-mail) 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:New York City Subway transfer-points

Please do not remove deletion tags; I have restored it. --NE2 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delancey-Essey Streets

*shrug* Okay. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E Service

This is the way I see it. The A pretty much splits its regular service evenly between Lefferts Boulevard and Far Rockaway, and has enough rush hour service to/from Rockaway Park that it's shown on The Map and noted in schedules. The same situation applies to 5 rush-hour service to Nereid Avenue; there's quite enough service that it merits display on The Map and schedules. This isn't the case with the E to 179th Street. If I recall correctly, Jamaica Center station is unable to turn E trains quickly enough to keep up with the required schedule; thus, three E trains start at 179th Street during the morning rush hour, while three trains terminate there during the evening rush. Frankly, this very limited service doesn't deserve a separate section in the E service table. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem really isn't the "size" of the terminal stations. The real issue at Jamaica Center is the placement of the scissors crossover that allows terminal operations. This crossover is unusually far from Jamaica Center station; it's almost midway to Sutphin Boulevard, in fact. Naturally, the greater the distance between the crossover and the terminal, the more time trains take to switch back to the appropriate track, and the lower the capacity. The problem on the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line isn't really Flatbush Avenue, it's the unusual Rogers Avenue junction on the IRT Eastern Parkway Line. The switch layout here causes trains diverging to/converging from Nostrand Avenue to interfere with through traffic on Eastern Parkway. This limits capacity on both Nostrand Avenue and Eastern Parkway. To minimize the effects, some 2 and 5 trains bypass the junction and continue to Utica or New Lots. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I've seen the junctions, I own this. *smiles* It's a wonderful resource, albeit expensive ($40). I bought mine at Posman Books in Grand Central Terminal, during Christmas break. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTA response time

I know, I'm joking :P Larry V (talk | e-mail) 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to IRT Lexington Avenue Line and IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line

Please do not remove ^{[citation needed]} tags without providing a citation to a reliable source. Thank you. --NE2 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --NE2 13:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BWCNY

I saw your edit to that users talk page, as a heads up, he is competing in a urinary olympic (G rated form of a type of argument) with another user... You should have seen it last night... His talk page at the moment is best left blank... Rob110178 11:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NYCS

Are you planning to make this template produce New York City Subway? This seems more of a "sign of laziness" than not wishing to add "service" every time you want to link to a service. --NE2 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to use template:NYCS service rather than to do the same thing using template:NYCS? --NE2 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing there says that NYCS service is a better name than NYCS, just that the functionality that NYCS service provided was preferred. But now that NYCS is unused, what's wrong with using it for that purpose? --NE2 00:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually your removing of the tfd tags is much closer to vandalism than my nomination of them. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and desist. Thank you. --NE2 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of the TFD is to determine consensus. If you continually remove them, you will be blocked. --NE2 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Look. The TFD is where consensus is gauged. Stop it. --NE2 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the page that specifically addresses this, but try reading Wikipedia:Deletion process. --NE2 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. A nomination for deletion is not vandalism. --NE2 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] En dashes, again

There shouldn't be a problem, since the redirects are still there. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirects aren't the worst thing in the world; they exist for a reason, one of which is to reroute typed queries to the properly-named article, which may use strange characters (such as dashes or diacritical marks). If you're concerned about strain on the servers, there's no need to be; redirects hardly use any resources at all (less than templates do, for sure). One operation that is far more harmful, for example, is going through articles and "correcting" redirects—i.e., replacing links to redirects with "direct" links. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and stop using the word to stop describing what is not vandalism. Thank you. --NE2 02:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I really think you should read Wikipedia:Vandalism. --NE2 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize that NE2 is being consistently impolite towards you. Unfortunately, it's not a violation of any Wikipedia rules. Sorry about that. alphachimp 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

AIV report removed. We're not going to resolve your dispute by blocking NE2. Sorry. alphachimp 03:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a personal beef with you, and am certainly willing to work together. That's why I've given you advice, and will continue to do so: you should read Wikipedia:Vandalism, since you have been using the term to describe edits that were nowhere near vandalism. Vandalism is essentially a deliberate bad-faith attempt to hurt the encyclopedia. --NE2 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that, while we have had our disagreements, I have noticed that you do good work in articles, and I do not wish you gone. --NE2 03:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC for BWCNY

Good Evening. An RfC has been initiated for the actions of BWCNY at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BWCNY. I noticed that you have attempted to help this user, I would like for you to be aware of this and please provide input on this RfC. Rob110178 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double redirects

When you make a page, please fix all double redirects. Thank you. --NE2 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow the directions on Wikipedia:Double redirects. An example of one is 103rd Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line station). --NE2 06:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, when you move a page, the message tells you to fix double redirects and gives you a link to "what links here" to find them. --NE2 06:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Trust Thomas US.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Trust Thomas US.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please join the Talk:R68 (New York City Subway car) discussion.

I've posted a prompt for consensus editing and cooperation on the talk page, please join and try to work towards a solution. ThuranX 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting WP:3RR violations

I've removed your current request to investigate User:M12592. Please don't report such violations at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The correct place is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (aka: WP:AN3). Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:N (New York City Subway logo).png

Thanks for uploading Image:N (New York City Subway logo).png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8th avenue stations

Hello, Noticed you reverting some of the external links, eg 81st and 86th. Was wondering why, since the links Bigrene put in were specific to the station in question; seemed reasonable to me. The link to which you reverted, when I looked, seemed more of a generic 8th Ave thing. (Actually seems to show an A on what's now the local track, which is curious!) Appreciate your thoughts. --AndrewHowse 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I agree that deleting the link title isn't helpful, but the actual link is different and more specific. I'll put the old title on the new link; take a look and see what you think. --AndrewHowse 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - good outcome I think. --AndrewHowse 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 (New York City Subway service)

[1] is not a reliable source. --NE2 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those are valid sources. If you want to find sources, go to your local library and search the New York Times archive. --NE2 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Either people believed that they were or they figured an unreliable source is better than no source. --NE2 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have to use IAR as an explanation, you've probably lost. You should read the section of WP:RS about self-published sources. --NE2 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Drastic decisions"

It's called being bold. The borough parameter is unnecessarily redundant, since that information belongs in the introduction to the article. As for the bold, "Use boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the title and any important synonyms (including acronyms)." and "Avoid other uses of boldface in the first paragraph, so the reader will not confuse the text with synonyms." --NE2 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that we should unless we have a good reason not to. --NE2 09:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you type [[Q (New York City Subway service)|]]; [[Q (NYCS)|]] is nice and short, and more importantly does not break in cases like the HH and K, where the templates offer no method of disambiguating. --NE2 09:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what I'm doing right now is fixing instances where we use parameters like {{NYCS|J/Z|J}}. Since you substed the {{NYCS J}} templates, these will take a lot longer to fix if the article is split into separate ones on the J and Z. --NE2 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You gave examples like the A-C and F-V. The J and Z and closer than those, but the MTA may decide to separate them, maybe by sending one up Chrystie. I gave a reason to avoid the templates: linking "does not break in cases like the HH and K, where the templates offer no method of disambiguating." --NE2 10:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was what we had back in the day, but we changed to the current simpler method. What would you be switching, anyway? --NE2 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the one place when redirects are bad - in templates where they should show up in bold on the page. Anywhere else, a redirect is great. --NE2 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits. Thank you. --NE2 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am very glad to join, WP:NYCPT!

I a still continuing to categorize NYC Subway Trains by types. I realy want to make something great to our WIKI project.

• By the way, today is 15 year as I live in America.
• I came in America, just 3 monthes, and 4 days after you were born.

GK tramrunner 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3RR rule violation on B Division (New York City Subway). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. John Reaves (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

unblock reviewed|1=I only reverted his edits in good faith. I never meant to breach 3RR, but I tried to revert his edits, so he could be contact people to see what they think. He refuses to have a consensus with other people, so I reverted his edits. Can someone please take this accordingly? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)|decline=This was already factored in to your block. You clearly knew about 3RR before this, as your talk page shows, and first blocks are often for 24 hours. — Yamla 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unblock review template in order to delete this request and review from the RFU category, as the block has expired by time. This is not a comment on the merits of the block (my personal opinion is that a warning would probably have been sufficient for a long-time user with no prior block history). Newyorkbrad 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bye!

It has been a pleasure working with you too. While I still participated in WP:NYCPT, I was really impressed by the volume and depth of your contributions. I completely understand your sentiments about Wikipedia. Obviously, I'd encourage you to come back. Don't let the trolls drive you away. Have a great day... alphachimp 15:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also I fixed it from "leaf of absence" to "leave of absence". I wasn't sure if you intended a play on words, but I fixed it in case you didn't. alphachimp 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)