User talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2017/Feb

Hey there! I had reverted your 2 recent revisions on New York City Subway chaining due to:

1. The article after those two edits almost exclusively was changed and cited to a single source, and
2. The source in question did not talk about Chaining at all, but rather Mileage. The two terms have different meanings. the article itself says " It is an example of the chainage system, instead of the milepost or mileage system".

If you have a problem with this, Please tell me. --Captian Cavy (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Captian Cavy: Thank you for your message. The mileage is related to chaining, so I will clarify that. Also, the single source is the one of the few I can find right now. epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Did a minor edit reflecting the difference between the chainage and mileage zero points. --Captian Cavy (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Secaucus Junction (IRT Flushing Line). Since you had some involvement with the Secaucus Junction (IRT Flushing Line) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? "fix" ?

If you can read that monstrous slab, you've better eyes than I have. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can read it. I split it up now. It was one of multiple fixes. Sorry. epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Aqueduct Racetrack (IND Rockaway Line) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

I am a professional tour guide in New York Ctiy. Trump Tower has been a major attraction since 1983. Donald Trump did not become a celebrity this year just because he ran for President. He was the star and creator of "The Apprentice" which was filmed at Trump Tower since 2004. The show alone made the tower an attraction. Tour guides have long liked bringing guests to Trump Tower not only because of the beautiful lobby, but also because it has the cleanest pubic restrooms in New York. I can say with 100% accuracy Trump Tower has been getting far more visitors annually than Coney Island has for decades. The fact you would comment this is an attraction for Trump fans only shows how little you know about the subject. Further, stating it's only been an attraction for "one year" is neither accurate nor relevant. I will yet again repost and also report your removal as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpfish36 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bpfish36: While your credentials are impressive, we are not going to list every single tourist attraction in NYC in the lead section. We are only supposed to report the most visited and historically well-known attractions. For the Trump Tower to be built in 1983, it isn't that old for a NYC tourist attraction (compare Statue of Liberty, opened 1886; Empire State Building, opened 1931; Central Park, established 1857; and Times Square, popularized in the 19th century).

Also see Wikipedia:Vandalism. My edits don't count as vandalism since it's a content dispute. Please keep that in mind. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC) epicgenius (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Melbourne car attack. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jamaica–179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

09:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The article Jamaica–179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Jamaica–179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:New York City Subway stations located at-grade, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the

{{update|date=September 2014}}

you added to this page, do you have any recommendations? I don't think much has changed--the project seems to be as dormant as ever, on both its website and on SourceForge.

Thanks. --Mathieu ottawa (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mathieu ottawa: I edited the article such a long time ago, I don't remember why I added the tag. But if there's any recent references that show its current status within the last couple years, you can add the source and remove the tag yourself. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't find anything cite-worthy at a quick glance, unfortunately. I guess we'll have to leave it as is, for now. --Mathieu ottawa (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess so, too. epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trump Tower you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shaded0 -- Shaded0 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: My pleasure. And thank you for the award! epicgenius (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your integration of Disney-specific traits to the Template:Disneyland Resort Line RDT page. I'm wondering if the route should be colored red in a Disney context also, but everything else looks fine. Just a fair warning, you may get a negative reaction to the changes you made from user Jc86035 and he may potentially revert them, so watch out for that. Jackdude101 (Talk) 1:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jackdude101: No problem. I'm not sure why the route should be colored red. Could you explain that to me? Also, Jc86035 is generally helpful with the BS-maps. I saw that TFD discussion and he seems to have made the nomination primarily to conform with the MTR style of route maps. But otherwise, I don't foresee any problems with this "compromise" map, which removes the need for two different templates. epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

In most cases rapid transit metro lines would be colored blue; however, the Disneyland Resort Line was colored red to highlight that it's a heavy rail line and not like all of the other Disney rail lines, which are all light rail lines. Jackdude101 (Talk) 2:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see. In the MTR routemaps it is divided into heavy rail and commuter rail. Heavy rail is blue, while commuter rail—the MOS Line, East Rail Line, and West Rail Line, which are not quite subway—is red. I'll have to find a way to toggle the coloring, or maybe add a note. Similar RDTs like {{Walt Disney World Monorail System}}, which is comparable to a rapid transit system, are also formatted in blue so I thought the Disneyland Resort Line could also be colored blue. epicgenius (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be difficult to add the red colors, but it would require that the template double in memory size and after looking at it, it's not a big deal that it's blue. I'm okay with how it is now. Jackdude101 (Talk) 4:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Beach–JFK_Airport_(IND_Rockaway_Line)&oldid=767212773

@TonyBallioni: TonyBallioni has moved the Howard Beach–JFK Airport (IND Rockaway Line) and East 105th Street (BMT Canarsie Line) stations to remove the disambiguator. I was able to fix the latter easily, but the former is harder to fix. Could you please help me with this? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. There is a discussion about this at the talk page of Amakuru (talk · contribs). I don't think Tony objected to the reversion, but if anyone wants to move this to another title because it is both Airtrain and subway, I will file a RM for this page only. Regards, epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no objections per my note at Amakuru's talk page. Ironically you pinged me while I was on wiki looking up something for work, so I can respond. I can cleanup the fixing of the double redirects later tonight if no one wants to. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: No worries. I'll clean them up right now. I'll then discuss this with Pppery since this is controversial (as evidenced above). The disambiguator has been contested in many different discussions before, which is the only reason I moved it back. epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This revision preceded your PEIS edits. Other than the tracking category, where is the visible problem? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: As of today, the {{Subject bar}} and {{Authority control}} templates are no longer visible. The next to be rendered as wikilinks, exceeding the PEIS, will be the navboxes. If the article keeps expanding, pretty soon none of the references will be visible. My posting and edits were just a heads up. epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I thought you'd want a link to this problematic review—the approval from which has been undone—so you can see the issues I noted back when checking the seven rapid-fire approvals and failures prior to ultimately reverting them. I imagine you'll want to take care of them now, before a new reviewer is found. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience caused by this novice reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: No problem. Should I renominate, or should I just ask for the review to be deleted? epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's all set: no need to renominate, and the nomination retains its seniority (what there is of it; some of the others had been waiting as much as six months, which is rather more serious). Per the discussion at WT:GAN, the problematic review pages will remain, but the GA nominee templates adjusted so that the next review opens on a new review page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Master Apartments you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, so I've been having some run-ins with a newer user (Olsen24) on the MTA RBO pages and on the commons, and I'm not the only one who has had issues with the user's editing. The user keeps removing info from the SBS page, insists on putting their own pictures on the bus fleet pages which is odd, and keeps removing categories from their own bus pictures and other RBO images/files. The user is also in danger of several copyright violations. I want to assume the user is editing in good faith but, well, I dunno. I thought to go to you for a solution, before I get into an inevitable edit war.

@Mtattrain:@Kew Gardens 613:@DanTD:

Tdorante10 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tdorante10: Thanks for notifying me. This user came up on my watchlist but I didn't know whether to revert them. Anyway, I see someone's tried to leave a message on the user talk page. Encourage them to bring up their issues on the respective talk pages of the articles, but if they keep edit warring, you can report them to the edit warring noticeboard. It doesn't matter if there is more than 3 reverts in 24 hours: continuous edit warring is also grounds for them to get reported. Same thing on Commons: keep trying to talk it out with them (telling them to stop removing categories is a good start), but if they keep this up then you can report this to the user problems noticeboard.

@Olsen24: This is a courtesy ping. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Aren't a lot of the details in the article supposed to be moved to separate pages for individual SBS routes? I realize this doesn't have much to do with Olsen's edits, but it's still something worth mentioning. This wasn't on my watchlist, but thanks for notifying me anyhow. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the routes (Bx12, M15, M23, Q44, B44, B46, M60, Q70) have articles while others (M34, Bx41, S79, M86) don't. epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I know, and I'm kind of stumped on my proposed article on the M86 (Eighty Sixth Street Crosstown Line). I should probably check for the trolley history either in my book on "Manhattan's Lost Streetcars," by Stephen L. Myers, or somewhere else. I guess I was hoping against hope that Olsen might've been moving some of the content to proposed articles. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You should probably create a draft at Draft:M86 (New York City bus). Meanwhile, I'm thinking about a draft for the M34 and M34A here. epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, instead of that, I've got User:DanTD/Sandbox/Eighty-Sixth Street Crosstown Line, that I had hoped to direct M86 into. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good start. I guess we should start looking for more sources. Will it be OK with you if I moved it to draft namespace, or do you want to keep it in your userspace? epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't decided yet. I'm leaning towards turning it over. Do you have sources? Anyway, on the main topic, the editor removed a lot of categories from bus images, many of which are duplicates of some he made before, and wants to see deleted, but he also deleted categories from images that he didn't post, that really need to stay there. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I may have some M86 sources. Anyway, the editor does need to stop his disruptive activities on both commons and enwiki. epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)