Talk:Croton Aqueduct

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When closed?[edit]

Nowhere does it say when the aqueduct was taken out of service -- anybody know? —Steve Summit (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It closed in 1955, and then the northernmost part was reopened in 1987 to service Ossining. I've added this to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The URL in note 9 in the references section, which has this information, is invalid. The correct URL is http://aqueduct.org/engineering-marvel. The URL in the note needs to be updated. Robertdirosario (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment breaks WP:MOS[edit]

This is what Wikipedia:Manual of Style says about hidden comments: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." --91.10.58.188 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is a GUIDELINE, not a policy, and the hidden comment separates the navbox from external links, helping to keep the page more visual appealing. Your objection has been brought to the attention of the community numerous times, and has been rejected each time as being trivial.

Now, while MOS is a guideline, WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is a POLICY, and it is against that policy for editors with an account to edit with an IP in order to avoid scrutiny of their edits. I suggest you don't do this again, and return to editing ONLY with your account - and drop your squalid little campaign against making pages easier for our readers to take in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS explicitly forbids exactly what you are doing. So far, the only reason you can give is "aesthetic choice". You should know that this is not a valid argument.
Stop making personal attacks. Don't ponder the issue, just stop right now. --91.10.58.188 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, you tell me who you are, and I'll stop. Give me your account name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything but your personal opinion (which contradicts WP:MOS) to say about the comment? --91.10.58.188 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Addition of the comment results in the addition of a small amount of white space. This addition makes the layout very slightly easier to understand as a whole. It's a slight improvement. The way in which the white space is added is via the addition of <p><br /></p>. This is of course valid XHTML. Semantically, it's a nonsense; however, it's a humdrum nonsense, and it adds under twenty bytes. (In principle, the better way to achieve the same result would of course be to use CSS to add a bottom margin to the list above or a top margin to the table below.) Precisely what is your objection? (Is it merely that the direction to the Mediawiki preprocessor violates the letter of MoS? Obviously Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode is about the inadvertent addition of space; it's irrelevant to the deliberate addition of space.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS has more to offer (my emphasis): "Modifications in font size, blank space, and color (see Color coding, below) are an issue for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet, and should be reserved for special cases only." That is not merely a useful rule, if you think about it, it is the only rule that could be in place. The alternative is that everyone makes up her own style in her "own" articles, and Wikipedia would be a mess.
If you don't like the way Wikipedia looks, change the style sheet. It is that simple. --91.10.58.188 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. "Change the style sheet" Where have I heard that exact language before? .... I know, it was from User:Curb Chain. who brought me to AN/I over this issue and was told that it was one of the most unimportant and trivial things ever brought there, and was told never to come back with it again. Great, so that now I know who you are - stop this before you get into trouble; policy (not a guideline) says that you should not edit with an IP to avoid scrutiny of your edits. Use your account, Curb Chain, and stop this nonsense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the right forum for this part of our quarrel. Please see WP:EAR#Personal Attack: What to do?.
Let me repeat one admin's response to you however, as a direct response to your lengthy explanation of a previous instance of this: "In other words, you have to resolve the issue within the structure provided by Wikipedia, or you are being disruptive to the process. You can start an RfC, go to WP:DRN, but you need to do something besides continuing to add them at this stage." --91.10.57.242 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As yet, the arguments in favor of a white space comments are:

  • "I like it better that way."
  • "You are a sock puppet!!"
  • "It's a slight improvement." - Answered above by the poster himself: It might be, but it should be applied elsewhere.
  • "You are a sock puppet!!"

Is there something else to add? --91.10.57.242 (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Apologies for my edit, didn't see this was currently under discussion. There is no precident ( that I am aware of) that includes the addition of a blank space between the said areas on any page I have seen or edited. It is such a pointless and an unnecessary addition that is not needed - especially when it is to the satisfaction of one users visual pleasure. I should also point out BeyondMyKen's accusation of sock puppetry and yet another example of his bad faith view of other editors. Just because an editor is an IP does not make him a sock puppet! Even if he has th same views of other editors. MisterShiney ✉ 09:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, your accusations of sockpuppetry are intimidatory and violates WP:HARRASS. I most certainly do not appreciate them. Let me also remind you of this discussion that you participated in. Notice also that bots remove white space and your insertion of this hidden comment is to circumvent the practice.Curb Chain (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hoary: Are you saying that WP:MOS should be changed to allow space above a nav box?Curb Chain (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, your attachment to using a stupid comment to insert spacing continues to be the most moronic thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I was asked by a third party that is not currently involved in this discussion to give an opinion.

  1. Conflict of interest. I have worked with BMK and Hoary in the past. I don't recall any problems, but my memory is not all the great.
  2. Please stop the bad behaviour by everyone. There are too many examples to list.
  3. Curb Chain, please try to always use your account.
  4. MOS is a guideline that should be used unless for occasional exceptions. (emphasis mine)
  5. A hidden comment should never be used for spacing. Period. This is per MOS and WP:HIDDEN.
  6. The {{-}} and {{clear}} tags should be used to create spacing.
  7. On the tag's wiki pages, they give good examples of when they should be used. Most common is the use of images.
  8. Is the use of spacing by BMK done to overcome a problem in layout. No. Is it done to overcome a problem that ends up confusing readers. No. Is there any reason except for aesthetics, No.

There is no spacing before navboxes on 99.99% of all articles. There is no good reason given to go against MOS in this case. Consensus of editors on this page also see no good reason to go against MOS. Bgwhite (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Props to you Bgwhite, but you do realize that Curb Chain didn't just happen to forget to use his account, right? He went around to various places pretending not to have an account and complaining that my saying that he was editing without logging in to avoid scrutiny was a personal attack. The "consensus" on this page is irrelevant, because it's the same 4 or 5 people who complain about it 'every time' and the same people who were thrown out of AN/I before. They just canvass each other and show up to create this illusion of consensus. The consensus on the AN/I report was that the extra line probably helped, and didn't hurt, and was entirely too trivial to waste any energy on -- and yet, here we are again, wasting energy on it, because Curb Chain, masquerading as an IP, deliberately stirred the shit. For my part, I see no reason to pay attention to a false "consensus" created by a few editors with a bug up their behinds, half of them editing under IPs to hide their identities (both here and on my talk page). That's my final take on this really, really stupid discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight...you are ignoring a consensus on a subject...? You know that is called Disruptive editing right...? You don't seem to have a justified reason for their inclusion other than "It looks better" which is a matter of personal opinion. I would ask you to respect the status quo, and not include the break, while this is under discussion as per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and respect that "status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change". MisterShiney ✉ 22:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last time you are going to throw accusations at me. File an WP:SPI or harass me again and I will take immediate action.Curb Chain (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BMK. I'm trying not to get in the middle of you and Curb Chain. Obviously there is bad blood between you two.
@Curb Chain. If you are using an IPs to hide your identity AND stirring up "trouble", then this is one of the definitions of being a sockpuppet. This will get you banned. If you are doing this, I would support a sockpuppet investigation.
@BMK. Removing any content by Curb Chain, other editors on this page do not support the white space, I don't support it and neither does MOS. Please note again that I don't support it. I usually have to see a real good reason to go against MOS.
@EVERYONE. STOP. Unless you want to make a comment about the spacing, please don't write anymore. It does no good. Bgwhite (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croton Aqueduct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croton Aqueduct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croton_Aqueduct&oldid=1206832187"