User talk:Acps110/Archives/2012/February

&larr; January 2012 | February 2012 | March 2012 &rarr;

Sincere Apologies...
Thank you for the comments...I am venturing into new horizons for the first time and following the suggested path...No doubt there is a learning curve to all that we do...I guess there are bumps along the way as we learn.

"Oh what a tangled "web" we have woven...

Take Care 68.148.74.6 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks for your apology. Here is a great tutorial for you, about the basics of Wikipedia. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

iBook / edited text
You edited my text concerning the reliability of the Clamshell iBook compared to follow up iBook and PowerBook computers. (remove fluff not supported by rev) The reference article (macintouch report, More than 10,000 laptops were logged, along with many thousands of comments.) stated: "The single most reliable Apple laptop in our survey is the original Blueberry, Tangerine and Graphite series iBook, with a low 8-11% repair percentage." I just replicated this statement. Please read carefully before editing....Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldohreule (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You left out the very important "in our survey." Regardless, it's not WP:NPOV to say "the single most reliable Apple laptop." There have been a lot of Mac laptops, and that ref doesn't support the Clamshell iBook being the most reliable of the entire lineup. The report only includes a small subset of Mac laptops. That's why I changed it to more neutral language. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To be precise: I wrote "Compared to follow-up iBook and PowerBook notebook computers, the Clamshell iBook proved to be the single most reliable Apple laptop." The macintouch report dealt not with a small subset, but 41 Apple notebook models sold over seven and a half years and was the most comprehensive report at that time. We know that in 2006 when the macintouch report was published the new Intel MacBook and MacBook Pro models came out - and the iBook and PowerBook line ended. I didn't compare the Clamshell reliability to MacBook and MacBook pro. It seems that you wish to gloss over the facts.Waldohreule (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Episode references
It is pretty much a common practice that a reference can be removed for an episode after the episode has aired. WP:VERIFIABILITY does need to apply in this case, WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue does. If you want to challenge this practice of removing references, bring it up in Template talk:Episode list.  Quasy Boy  17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you need to re-read WP:VERIFIABILITY. As a core policy of Wikipedia, it states that everything on Wikipedia needs to be written about somewhere else first. What is written here can be verified from the source material. By removing a source, you are allowing the individual episodes to become unsourced. Wikipedia allows any unsourced information to be removed at anytime. However, there is never any reason to remove properly sourced information. Even if the source goes dead, it still shouldn't be removed unless a new source replaces it.
 * I am not challenging the fact that those episodes are wrong, I am challenging the fact that they are properly sourced and you are making them unsourced. Also, I'm not asking if the sky is blue; Everybody knows that. I'm asking about something specific. Therefore, it needs proper sourcing.
 * On last thing, by removing a source, you are not improving the encyclopedia. You are effectively undoing your earlier work. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said if you feel that way about verifiability at all costs concerning episode titles, start a discussion on it on Template talk:Episode list. I am just doing what has been down for on Wikipedia concerning episode lists for a while now. The information is not being pulled from thin air concerning the episode titles, I pay close attention to the article as it is to know what is accurate information. You seem to only be paying attention to the latter episodes concerning the references, reference all the episodes then, not just the latter ones if that is the case. There is such a thing as over-citing, See: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.  Quasy Boy  19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your comment on User Talk:HJ Mitchell's page. If you want my opinion, QuasyBoy is right.  An episode that has aired, doesn't need a source as it is at that time obvious what the episode is about and what information can be obtained from it. — cyberpower  ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 21:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. The whole thing is unsourced. Why? All I see are sources to the viewership. Can you source the rest of the article? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, any non-obvious information would need a source. Since aired episodes are considered obvious information, a source isn't really needed.  Anything new would generally need one though. — cyberpower  ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 00:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious to who? How can I verify it? There are no sources for the episodes at all, only to the viewership. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To anybody that follows the show. Anything that has aired can be considered an obvious source because it's probably what people go to as their first source.  To source an aired episode is like sourcing the fact the Sky is blue.  Anybody can look up and see for themselves that it is blue and doesn't need to be referenced.  It's the same with aired episodes. — cyberpower  ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a primary source for anything. I don't know why you would even think of using it like that. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on Acps110's other edits, he/she is not familiar with other episode lists on this site. In many other episode lists a reference is not forever attached to the episode title. Acps110 can't seem to understand that. One again citing every episode means Over-citing.  Quasy Boy  06:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some recent edits I'd like to question
For the station articles on the IRT White Plains Road Line, I noticed you changed the lead paragraph saying what train serves the station and when from "the 5 at all times except late nights and rush hours in the peak direction" to "the 5 daily except rush hours in the peak direction." You forgot to put "late nights" between "except" and "rush hours" in that sentence because the 5 does not serve those stations during late night hours unless of course late nights is not included in your use of the word "daily." If that is the case, however, you have to change that on all other station articles that have a certain service serving them at all times except late nights (i.e. on the C, R, and 3 trains). I know subway service is low and not used a lot during late night hours, it is no different than any other time of the day.

Also, I noticed you edited the templates related to the M train running on the IND Queens Boulevard Line from "weekdays at all hours except late nights" to "weekdays until 11 p.m." Maybe we should change that to "weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m." because if a certain train stops serving a station at a certain time of the day, there has to be a certain time when it starts serving it daily. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't forget to explicitly exclude late nights, because daily already excludes late nights. The day according to the MTA lasts from approximately 6 AM (at the beginning of the morning rush) until midnight. Weekend days begin later (8 AM on Sat, 9-10 AM on Sun) but for the purpose of this discussion, weekend days are just like any other day. I added "at all times" to the Flushing south template because weekdays doesn't include late nights either.


 * "All times" vs. "daily" vs. "weekdays"
 * Since the subway runs 24 hrs a day, most of the service wording is biased in that direction. The structure of the services shows a decreasing amount of service from that... an all times except late night service runs every day from 6 AM to midnight. Weekdays would be even less service... Mon to Fri, 6 AM to midnight. The point I'm stressing is that neither daily or weekdays includes midnight to 6 AM.


 * 5 trains have the most number of structured degradations of service in the system. Rush hours and mid-days it runs the full length. The rest of the day it short turns at Bowling Green. Late nights, its route is further shortened to a shuttle in the Bronx. Or looked at another way, after the PM rush hour it is demoted from Flatbush Ave back to Bowling Green, and can't get to Brooklyn. After midnight it is demoted again, this time from Bowling Green back to East 180th St and can't even get out of the Bronx. So "daily except rush hours in the peak direction," means only that, and expands to "daily (Monday to Sunday) from 6 AM to midnight you can expect a 5 train to stop, except if it is a Monday to Friday rush hour, inbound in the AM or outbound in the PM."


 * I replaced "all times" with "daily" because there were too many exceptions for "all times" to really mean all times. If a service doesn't run late nights, it seems strange to me to say it runs all times, unless that is the only exclusion. I am fine with "all times except late nights," because that is the same thing as "daily from 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m." or "daily until 11 p.m."


 * I shortened the wording for the M train (and other templates) because there is a limited amount of horizontal space in the infoboxes. I just took the same wording from B service to keep things from strangely wrapping to the next line.


 * (As an aside, I wish NYCS would do away with weekend service and run mid-day service from 8 AM to 11 PM on weekends instead. That would simplify things a lot. 5 to Flatbush Ave, B to 145th Street, M to Forest Hills and Q to Astoria.) Acps110 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

LIRR West Brighton Beach and Culver Line
If the Culver Line was never the West Brighton Beach Division of the Long Island Rail Road, then what's this? DanTD (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the Culver Line (surface) route. According to that article, the LIRR stopped using the Culver line after 1899. The elevated line didn't open until 20 years later in 1919. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I just fixed it. I wish somebody had replied to my question about it on the WP:NYPT talk page. DanTD (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your question on WT:NYCPT, but I didn't respond to it because I thought you had already figured it out. Sorry about that. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

&larr; January 2012 | February 2012 | March 2012 &rarr;