User talk:InkQuill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is InkQuill's talk page. Fighting for truth, accuracy and the First Amendment.
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
|
[edit] Orange Metro North Station
you are right to want to work it out, but it is best for all here or on the article's talk page. That way others can learn/participate. I will continue to respond here or there. You can also use my talk page (you write on my talk page, I'll answer on yours).
Briefly, for now, I am originally from the area, but the only "axe" I have is against plans that are not reality. If they build it (the Orange station) I would use it as an alternate to driving to Woodmont (from New York). I like the idea. It would be good for me. But plans in transportation often get a lot of talk, without anything getting built. Look at Route 34. Or the extension of commuter rail to Hartford.
One of the quickest ways we can decide that the section should stay is to find out exactly what the initial money was appropriated for. We should establish that this is more than planning money, and that there is a real timetable, etc, which may not be so easy. Has there even been an EIS?
After that, the question of "why Orange" comes up. And this part is much tougher. We are not allowed to guess why Orange gets a station, and claim that it is fact. We are not allowed to "figure it out" That is called Original Research on Wikipedia, and also not allowed. We'd need someone in authority, or a Reliable Source to say, explicitly, Orange will have a station because we want every town to have a station, or that this is an official policy, or something like that. Otherwise, couldn't this just be a convenient spot between the long gap from Milford Center to West Haven? Jd2718 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are two separate questions: 1)Will these things be built? and 2) Are these two towns getting stations because they don't have them?
- Second question first. If we have a sentence that says there are plans for stations in West Haven and Orange, followed by the fact that these are the only two towns on the New Haven line without stations, we are implying cause and effect. And we are not allowed to make a claim of cause and effect if we do not have a Reliable Source that says so.
- Will they be built? It sounds like a debate, not a done deal. If it is this time an active debate (the proposal for at least a West Haven station has been floated many times in the past), then we should source it, and indicate what stage the discussion is in. If it is a done deal, that should be sourced and indicated.
- Transportation plans are floated all the time, and die all the time. If there is a budget issue, they see the first cuts. It is not a good idea to include plans that are not yet definite.
- Finally, I regret that I tried to rebut transportation details. However, while not directly relevant to the article, the questions have been opened up.
- Do Marsh Hill Road and Lambert Road function as a single roadway? Do they have the same physical characteristics? No. Do they carry similar traffic volumes? No. Does most of the traffic on Lambert continue on to Marsh Hill? No. Vice versa? No. (From a layman's point of view, when giving directions it would be necessary to tell someone not to turn off)
- Who would the Orange Station serve? There are simply many many more times as many people in proximity to that location who live in West Haven and Milford than who live in Orange.
- Is Marsh Hill Road a major road? Of course! You misquoted me on the article's talk page. That was wrong. Marsh Hill Road functions as a major access from the Post Road to 95. It is a sort of hybrid between an on-ramp and a street. You called Marsh Hill a major north south road serving Orange. That would be different. We have several streets that do that (all carrying considerably more traffic than Lambert)
- You wrote "the only road that Orange residents can use to get to I-95" which is just wrong. The other entrances may not be in Orange, but there is no town loyalty in selecting highway access. (40,42, Merritt to the Connector, even via Route 8)
- Finally, it is town centers, in general, that have stations. Walking distance to the Green clearly counts. The quick comparison (all other towns have one) is in this sense misleading. Jd2718 14:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Didn't mean to offend you. Polaron is providing source on the legislation. Didn't realize I needed to say ok. The latest rewrite though is better. As better sources are located, the paragraph will continue to improve (which might be expanding it, shrinking it, or modifying it). If you are going to keep editing, it might be worthwhile to assume that your fellow editors are intelligent and are acting on good faith. This did not start out well. Your sources did not say what you said they did. You implied that you had unique local knowledge that made only you qualified to describe the street network, you responded with several factually inaccurate statements.
- But starting out on the wrong foot doesn't condemn one to stay there. The section is better-sourced and more accurately written now. Other editors have become involved. And finally, local knowledge is invaluable. It just can't be used as a cudgel in disputes. Jd2718 02:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but not too fond of Sloppy Jose's. You saw what Polaron found? We'll reword to reflect that information. Jd2718 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Toni Morrison
The categories were removed because they were deleted by the consensus of the Wikipedians through the process of Category for Discussion. CFD (I think you meant this) is the process of proposing the deletion, merge or rename of a category. For more details, see the link above. Anyway, you did an error when you say "Using CFB". It was "per CFD using AWB". AWB is a semiautomated wikipedia editing program. It allows you to quickly change hundreds of pages. I use it to remove deleted categories and substitute renamed ones. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Succession of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States
Thanks for your additions and corrections! Bit by bit we're getting this article looking presentable!
b. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bpmullins (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC). (The bot beat me to the signature - sorry! - Bpmullins | Talk
- Aaargh. I may need to fix my displayed name -- b and p are my first and middle initials -- I'd never even thought that somebody might mistake it for "Bp." (!) Go right ahead with your work on the individual dioceses - those contributions are appreciated. I'd offer one warning (which I already have on the Talk page) - you don't start counting (and adding roman numerals) for the bishops until they actually become a diocesan. Check the numbers for the Bishops of Hawaii for an example - they've just elected their fifth, but Ed Browning is shown as VIII Hawaii. A previous editor took that from another site which didn't understand the rules. Thanks again for the help. -- Bpmullins | Talk 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at your copy of the Red Book and count from the first English bishop (and omit the suffragan) you get eight for Browning. There are other dioceses in the west that have similar things - they were missionary dioceses for part of their history. As far as the talk, I guess it's just the way the software works... b. Bpmullins | Talk 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - would you doublecheck my last edit to make sure I didn't wipe out anything of yours? You accidentally overwrote some of mine; I reverted but I want to make sure that I didn't lose anything. -- BPMullins | Talk 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I notice that you changed my entry for Starkey from Northern New Jersey to Newark. My choice there was deliberate: when he was consecrated the diocese was indeed called Northern NJ. I've been attempting to track the various changes in the names of the dioceses in the table. In my sources, he was identified as NNJ. There are many other changes as well; Northern California and Northern Michigan were known by those names when they were missionary districts but General Convention imposed the see city's name (Sacramento and Marquette) when they became dioceses. Both later reverted to their original names. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits to Hartford
I recently changed some of the Hartford, CT article, which you deleted. These changes involved adding some photos of Hartford landmarks (standard practice for wikipedia articles). If you had problems with the formatting, thats one thing. But you completely got rid of some very helpful photographs, and reverted back to the old version, which has, in my opinion too many skyline photographs (1 is enough, and there is far more to show about hartford). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.222.210.165 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Blocked
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating our neutrality policy. Please spend the time reading and understanding that policy, as well as the sourcing policy. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
unblock|I was removing defamation, not adding to it. InkQuill 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
