User talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2013/Apr

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

csd

Please see WP:CSD#A1 We do not use it for short and unsatisfactory articles--we only use it for articles so short and unsatisfactory that it is impossible to tell what the subject is about. An article on list of prisons in a particular country may be incomplete, or unsourced, or have other problems, but it's clear what the subject is. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. I actually meant to put the "Expand article" template. Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Park Avenue Tunnel, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MOS:DAB is pretty explicit that a disambiguation page is just a brief entry and contains no links except the main one. DMacks (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oops, sorry. I changed it so that it would fit the style. Epicgenius (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Rockaway Boulevard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Nassau, New York and Atlantic Avenue
List of New York City Subway R-type contracts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pullman
Little Neck Parkway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nassau, New York
Proposed New York City Subway expansion (1929–1940) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to K (New York City Subway service)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi .. I know you have special interest in NYC subways. Could you perhaps check "(4, ​6, and <6> trains)" at 72nd Street (Manhattan) and East 74th Street (it appears the same elsewhere)? It doesn't look right to me as it suggests the 4 train stops at those local stops, but you would likely know. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem. I'll be sure to check these out. Epicgenius (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Tentinator. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kaydee "Caine" Lawson, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 14:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Newark Penn layout chart

Still not sure how much this is needed. Yes,omitting it would make it different than other PATH stations, but Newark Penn is inherently different from other PATH stations by its nature. Also, even with it there, there's a few problems with it. Firstly, the platforms for tracks A and 1 are not shorter on the east end than the ones for the other tracks, so the layout is inaccurate. Secondly, and this is a big one, the use of color, especially red, for links is depreciated severely, as it makes the link look like a link to a non-existent article. That has to be changed. oknazevad (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There's problems with the graph, so the two platforms look shorter. Also, the shade of red used here is a different shade of red than that used to link to a nonexistent article.
(Like this: NWK-WTC {{Rail text color|system=PATH|line=NWK-WTC}})

Sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. Epicgenius (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Any chance we'll see the Newark City Subway layout there? -------User:DanTD (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'll get to it when I have time. Epicgenius (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The color is still a bit to close for my tastes, and I have concerns that it runs afoul of WP:COLOR but I wouldn't edit war over it. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, there's been some recent discussion about using the rail line color template at WT:TRAINS#Template:Rail text color. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC nomination, Gangnam Style

You recently tried to nominate this article at WP:FAC. You have opened the link on the talkpage, but have not initiated the nomination. You need to do this, to get the nom recognised on the FAC page; use the redlink on the article's talkpage, and follow the instructions there. Then add the article to the FAC page listing. As you are not a major contributor to the article, you will need to get the agreement of its principal editors to the nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Brian provided some helpful advice above. Not sure why you have instead initiated another nomination, on another article to which you are not a significant contributor (Futurama). Please read the featured article instructions. FAC is a collaborative process; a nominator needs to be intimately familiar with the article's content and sources in order to respond to the feedback of multiple reviewers. I have undone the nomination on both article talk pages. Please add a {{db-author}} tag to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Futurama/archive2 to have the page deleted. If you have any questions about the FAC instructions, please leave a note on my talk page. Maralia (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston marathon bombing - Saudi individual

Hi,

The Saudi individual in the Marathon bombing is already covered in the investigation section of the article. The sources used there are better (Washington Post & NYTimes vs Daily Mail). GabrielF (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Idiot, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fool and Moron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Exact names of articles and the naming convention

Hello. Please check your watchlist. You will find many interesting things there. Vcohen (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll be sure to uncheck many of the userpages there. What interesting things are you referring to, anyway? Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean the contents of your watchlist. I don't know which pages you have on it, and it is not what I want to say. Please look at these edits that I did several minutes ago: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
You make too many errors in links to articles, especially when you use hyphen instead of endash. I don't want to fix them after you. :^( Vcohen (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh. My apologies, I can't type the "–-" symbol on my keyboard. It always comes out as "-". Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 15:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The "–-" symbol is not a correct symbol either. :^) Vcohen (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Then what is? I don't get it. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 15:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
One more: [7]
When you put two symbols together like this "–-", it's the first of the two. Vcohen (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make page moves contrary to WP:ENGVAR

Please don't make page moves contrary to WP:ENGVAR, and please use proper technique (WP:MOVE) instead of cut-and-paste. Slav Defense is the example I have in mind. Quale (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I tried to use the latter (WP:MOVE), but it did not work because of a redirect notice. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 23:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • In that case you must request assistance rather than cut and paste. See WP:RM. Still, remember that that was a bad page move contrary to guidelines. Except under particular circumstances, pages are not moved simply to conform to the English variety that you prefer. Quale (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Wasn't my preference; all the other articles on chess used the British spelling (Indian Defence, Caro–Kann Defence, Sicilian Defence, French Defence) except Slav Defense.Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 01:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
        • If you look at Category:Chess openings you will see that there are quite a few articles with "defense" instead of "defence". The English variation used is determined by the preference of the editor who started the article, so there is not a consistent standard. We try to keep consistency within an article, but aiming for consistency across categories of articles is not possible. Articles often fall into several categories, and there is considerable overlap. If we standardize the English version in one category, that will have a knock-on effect in the other categories those articles were members of. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

St. Mark's Place

Your decision to unilaterally make the article St. Mark's Place into 8th Street/St. Mark's Place was an exceeding poor one. Despite the fact that they take up the same position on the grid, the two streets have different characters. Additionally, the resulting article in 90% about St. Marks with a few bits and pieces about 8th Street thrown in. Also, Greenwich Avenue is NOT a continuation of 8th Street - there are no examples in Manhattan of a "Street" turning into an "Avenue", and Greenwich goes off at an angle. In point of fact, 8th Street stops at Astor Place (NOT Third Avenue) and St. Mark's starts on the other side of Astor Place, making them two different streets. (The streets signs there will confirm that.)

You've made such a mess of things, that I've only done some absolutely necessary cleanup, and am not -- at this time -- asking that the move be reverted (although anyone reading this who agrees that the move was a bad one who wants to put it back, you've got my agreement). I think that, considering how poor your judgment was in making this move, and given the quality of some of your other edits and suggestions that I am aware of, in the future you should not move any articles without first getting a consensus to do so on the talk page from editors who have better sense. Please don't make this kind of mess again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for any inconvienence. St. Mark's and Eighth both are the same street, geographically. There is no difference other han the name (like Central Park West and Eighth Avenue).Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I've undone the remainder of your edits in this area, all of which should have been discussed before being implemented. I strongly suggest that you stop editing in this area, as I think your knowledge is insufficient. If you continue to make these kinds of edits, moving long-established articles, mashing them together, linking streets and avenues that shouldn't be linked, I will suggest that you be topic banned from this area, since your judgment is poor. Better to just stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I still fail to see why the articles shouldn't be consolidated into one. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
A side note: I am familiar with the neighborhood and the street. They are in few ways different, though 8th Street is less notable than St. Mark's. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
St. Mark's Place has a significant cultural history as a center of the East Village, which is why it had a seperate article. 8th Street never played a simiilar role for Greenwich Village. Greenwich Avenue is in no way, shape, or form related to either of them, yet you tied them together. Just because two lines on a map meet doesn't mean that both lines are the same street. I suggest you stop flattering yourself with your familiarity with these various streets and avenues you're slamming together, since the very fact that you're doing is evidence that you're not as familiar with them as you think you are. If you have an idea that two streets should be combined, don't do it, go seek advice from other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, okay. I'll undo Greenwich Avenue. I have no say on the other two. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... It's already been done. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant!

I was attempting to create a new article space Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) to sort out a problem on the subjects talkpage. I thought I had screwed up and it didnt take. Did you spot it and transfer it???!!! Amazing! Respect. Irondome (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I just redirected it. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 01:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You have sorted out a big problem on the articles direction and naming! I would have no idea how to have managed it. Seriously, thanks! Irondome (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have created a redirect, which is close to sorting a disambiguation title. Dont worry if it was reverted, you have been invaluable in showing that it can be done. Now at least we have some link with a broadly agreed title we can modify. I may hassle you for tech advice if a complete move with talk becomes necessary. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it was reverted back. Still, I'm glad I could help.  ;) Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 12:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

2 GANs

Hello, I notice both our GA nominations are chess-related, do you want to do something a little unusual, and review each other's articles? If I start my review on yours, would you review my Falko Bindrich article? Cheerio, ChessFiends (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, I'd be glad to help! Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Great! I'm reviewing yours now. :) ChessFiends (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I'll be sure to review yours soon! ;) Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 14:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Talk:Checkmate/GA1. ChessFiends (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Sup, I've done all that you've asked from me in the Falko Bindrich article, if there's any more you want me to do just let me know, cheers. ChessFiends (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Hello, I did all of the changes that you asked of me in your GA review for Falko Bindrich, also there are still a few things to be done about the Checkmate article which i'll have to fail if you don't work on within the next 2 days or so. Standard amount of time is a week, it's been 8 days. Thanks, ChessFiends (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
              • My apologies. I've been busy lately. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 11:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
                • So what about the Falko Bindrich article, does it pass or fail? ChessFiends (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • Pass. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 15:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • Okay, well in order to pass it, you need to replace the GA nominee template with {{GA| date | topic}. For the checkmate article, you should reference the sections for backrank, scholar..... Shouldn't take much searching, there's plenty of stuff about checkmates in books and on the web. It's starting to look like a GA quality article. ChessFiends (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

* On which page am I going to replace the template? The talk page for the article, or the GAN list itself?Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Checkmate

Why are you making an inconsistent physical mess out of the Checkmate article?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not, I'm getting rid of the whitespace. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 16:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You're adding whitespace, and making a general mess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I was? Sorry. I'm just cleaning it up. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 17:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the whitespace in the article, you don't need to worry about that. But it still needs some expanding into the more common mates. ChessFiends (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. And I'll be sure to do the rest of the improvements (and review your article). Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Fylbecatulous. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, MicaGrace O'Dwyer, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 12:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

59th Street (Manhattan)

You recently added a list of all of the intersections on 59th Street, along with whether or not they have traffic lights. I think that this kind of list is too detailed, impossible to maintain, and impossible to verify through reliable sources. It amounts to WP:Original research, and I have removed it from the article. In the future, I strongly encourage you to support your additions to articles with references to WP:Reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There are sources: Google Maps Street View shows the traffic lights. Google Maps and Bing Maps show the intersections. I will add it back as soon as I have reliable sources. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Google maps is not a reliable source. But even if it was, what is the encyclopedic value of listing traffic lights? Pburka (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Other sources I listed are Bing Maps and Yahoo! Maps. It's highly unlikely that all 3 sources would be wrong (and there's more than just 3 sources.) Besides, the traffic light listings aren't even important; all the intersections of 59th Street, other than the intersection with the West Side Highway, have traffic lights. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I still think the list of intersections is largely unnecessary, as anyone who really wants to know about intersections is more likely to consult a map than Wikipedia, but I don't strongly object to it. I do oppose any attempt to put the traffic lights back. If we list traffic lights we might as well list manholes and storm sewers, too. Pburka (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I hear you. But the listing of intersections and traffic lights have been put on other articles too, like these articles: 23rd Street, 34th Street, 42nd Street, and 57th Street. I'm aiming for consistency with these articles. I am sorry if it causes any inconvenience to you. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
None of those include traffic lights. It's not about inconvenience; it's about producing the best possible encyclopedia. Pburka (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm only including traffic lights because they have pedestrian crossings, a list of which a Wikipedian may find helpful. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
We don't include content in Wikipedia because it might be helpful. We include it because it's encyclopedic and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't think that the traffic lights of New York meet either of those criteria. See WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INFO. Pburka (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I know. But traffic lights are mostly also intersections. Additionally, I see you've deleted the locations of some of the intersections (such as the intersection of Asser Levy Place and East 23rd Street on the 23rd Street article). Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 21:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City#Lists of intersections, crosswalks and traffic lights. I invite you to contribute. Pburka (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

One again you demonstrate your poor judgement. Please stop adding list of intersections to Manhattan street articles. They may be factually correct, but they're hardly encyclopedic. I asked you to stop editing in this area because your knowledge is not as good os you think it is, yet you continue. Again, I ask you, please stop, Your edits are becoming disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In what ways are they "hardly" encyclopedic? They're consistent with the lists on other articles about NYC streets. Besides, it's good to have at least a list of major intersections of streets, so readers will know what streets intersect with a certain roadway.Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 21:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
They should be removed from those articles. We are an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide, and a list of the intersections, while factual, is totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Well, in that case, can we remove the list of subway stations and major bus routes on those streets, too? Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't bother me in the least, go ahead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Well then, how about deleting the list of neighborhoods in the 14th Street (Manhattan) article? Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of minor edit

Please consider using the minor edit tag more judiciously. Several of your recent minor edits have made substantial changes to articles. See WP:MINOR for a description of how the tag is intended to be used. Pburka (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Your abuse of minor edits is bordering on WP:DISRUPTIVE. Please stop misusing the minor edit tag. We rely on editors to exercise good faith. Incorrectly tagging your edits as minor is deceptive, as it subjects them to less scrutiny by other editors. Pburka (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't help it, it's one of my habits. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 21:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a habit: it looks like an effort to 'hide' your edits. Please make the effort to change your disruptive habit. Pburka (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Most of my edits are less than 500 bytes. To me, that's "minor". Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 22:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Please review WP:MINOR. Anything that changes meaning or content is not minor. Pburka (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
So, technically, according to what you're saying, none of my contributions are minor. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 22:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Bingo. Unless you're fixing a typo, it's probably not a minor edit. Pburka (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You're still misusing the minor edit tag and you've been warned about this before. If you continue to make use deceptive minor tags I will move to have you temporarily blocked. Pburka (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

They're all still minor edits. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you please confirm that you've read and understood WP:MINOR? The following edits were NOT minor:
  1. [8] - added content
  2. [9] - added content
  3. [10] - added content and new references
  4. [11] - removed an image
If you're not sure, don't mark it as minor. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I mark any edits as minor sometimes. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
You're still marking edits as minor only minutes after apologizing for doing so[12]. I can only assume that your apology was insincere and that you're not interested in working collaboratively. Pburka (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Note the dummy edits afterward. I don't mean to actually do these minor edits. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 01:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
There are no "dummy edits". You've made three edits to Pedestrian crossing today, all of them tagged as minor. I suggest that you simply stop using the minor edit check box completely. If you're unable to keep from clicking it, perhaps you should take a break from editing for a while. Pburka (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
That's because they didn't show up.
I'll just refrain from checking the boox from now on. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 01:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, stop ticking minor edits. [13][14][15] Edits that add any sort of content, should not be considered minor. ChessFiends (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

They aren't exactly new content. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 01:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter! Any content. ChessFiends (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Your edits have become disruptive. You've been warned multiple times by multiple editors to stop misusing the minor edit tag. Your excuse that you "can't help it" is unacceptable. Stop misusing the minor edit tag immediately. Pburka (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

LaSalle Street

There is no reason for a hatnote distringuishing a major street in Chicago from an unknown 2-block street in Manhattan. Please THINK before you edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Think"? Someone might get confused between the two streets. Please do not think that I don't know what I am doing. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't have a fucking clue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Elaborate, please. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Alg-51st-queens-jpeg.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Alg-51st-queens-jpeg.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pburka (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd tagging

You tagged United States v. Kincade for disputed accuracy and for not having a global world view. The article is about United States case law; it should not need a "global" view, as long as the context is properly understood. (In a sense, it does have global view, as it is explicatory of United States law to anyone in the world who chooses to read it.) And the facts in the case are all cited to a law text; what is your dispute with their accuracy? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and so tagged. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Just a reminder that it is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy to edit logged out with an IP with the intent of avoiding scrutiny of your edits. This is apparently what you did with User:67.220.154.178. Please don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That was not my intent. I used that IP because I was in public wi-fi, not because I wanted to avoid scrutiny of my edits. I apologize for any misunderstandings. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 11:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"Namesakes"

Hello.

In this section, I've raised the topic of one of your recent edits. In particular, you didn't even seem to notice all those other lists! Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lists

Hi Epicgenius, please stop changing the layout at List of vegetarians and List of vegans. We need shorter sections for ease of editing, and in List of vegans the United States names still have to be merged, so the sections will get even longer. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Widths and lengths of streets

Where are you getting the widths and lengths of streets that you are adding to articles? What is your source? If you are somehow measuring themselves, say via Google Maps, please be aware that this would be a violation of our policy against original research. You can look at a map and say that a street is three block long (or whatever), but you cannot use the map's measuring device to say that it is 75 feet wide and 200 feet long. Please refrain from adding this data to articles without a citation from a reliable source to back it up.

Also, if you are also using Google Maps to judge the beginnings and ends streets, that is OK, but you should be aware that maps are not always as clear as they seem to be. Fifth Avenue, for instance, does not connect to the Harlem River Drive, and therefore does not end there -- as you put into the article -- but at 143rd Street.

Once again, you must be smarter in your editing. This is not a game we're playing here, for accumulating awards or making lists of our accomplishments, we're supposed to be building an accurate encyclopedia. Too many of your edits have been mistaken in too many ways for my comfort, and you must be better at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  • And again, I know what I am doing. I get the lengths from a real, paper map. I get the widths from the measurements of an average street/moving lane in NYC. The lengths, I do get from Google Maps, but that's insignificant. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 11:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No, you don't know what you're doing, because both actions you describe are original research and are not allowed. Also, using an average across all streets and adding it as definite and specific information for a particular street is adding inaccurate information. Don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • They're not original research. [1] And while I acknowledge that my measurements are wrong, I'm not going to get some tape measures to measure the street widths myself. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 23:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Using a tape measure would definitely be original research, but so is what you're doing. It's WP:SYNTHESIS. If you want to list widths of individual streets (and I have no idea why we need that), then you need to find a reliable source which says they're that wide. Inferring the width by combining multiple reliable sources is quite certainly original research. If you want to improve our articles about NYC streets, I suggest that you focus on the history and significance of the streets rather than lists of technical data about the streets. Pburka (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ NYC Street Design Manual

Reminder about marking edits as "minor"

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Naka-Okachimachi Station, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2013/Apr&oldid=1142989926"