User talk:Cecropia/Archive 14

Dessertion
Talk:Desertion -==SV 22:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ABCD
I note that you haven't voted. Perhaps you should, since as you note the vote is close. It's a tough case because both the support and oppose votes seem to be well-founded. If there are no further votes by the deadline, I would be inclined to promote, because of the moderately large turnout, because one of the oppose votes has no reasoning, and because the overall reasoning of the opposition is based on volume of activity rather than any sort of track record of problems. My two cents. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BMT Eastern Division directions
I've been talking to someone recently who says that the Jamaica and Myrtle Avenue Lines now have south as towards Manhattan. Do you know anything about this? --SPUI (talk) 15:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Franklin map
Am I correct about the pre-reconstruction configuration there (with the westbound track merging with the eastbound, and one track to Franklin)? And if so, where was the platform?

I did include the non-revenue and removed tracks, but unfortunately chose a bad shade of gray. --SPUI (talk) 23:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. How far west does the current platform at Franklin Avenue extend? Is it as wide as the old eastern one? --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the map. --SPUI (talk) 02:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Culver Line
Would you object to covering the part south of the Culver Ramp in BMT Culver Line and only the IND-built part in IND Culver Line? Operationally it seems to be part of the BMT; it just happens to only have an IND service on it. --SPUI (talk) 22:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course nycsubway.org calls the IND part the Crosstown Line. Anyway, I'll get working on the split in a bit. --SPUI (talk) 23:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your welcome; I can see that I have a lot of quiet study to do before I start reading aloud from the admin spell-book. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3rr
I recently stumbled across your comments re: 3rr on Jimbo's talk page, and wanted to voice my agreement with them. I've never been a fan of 3rr blocks, and while I'm willing to accept that they may have their place, I share your concern that they are being applied without thought. I also believe that editors are learning to game the system in various ways, and that 3rr is being used both for editorial leverage and as a means of settling scores. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon's RfA
Since he has withdrawn his request, should it be archived, or should it still stay the full week? Thanks. Guettarda 22:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your information
Hi Cecropia, thanks for the information and wishes. I'll definitely excercise care and caution in using the sysop powers. -- 04:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Greetings Cecropia, and thank you for the note and link; I'll be reading it through shortly. Btw, enjoyed your commentary under "Cecropia Lite"; it's quite to the point. Best, Antandrus 04:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adminship standards
I like the statement in your adminship standards about edit counts. That is true; I have written articles offline and then posted them in one edit before (for instance, Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company, which I wrote for my Accounting class). Rad Racer | Talk 19:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If people continue to remove information the public deserves to know, I will no longer post to Wikipedia.

Wingover

NYC Subway infobox
Yeah, that sounds good (assuming that was the first of the predecessors). Strangely, the oldest right-of-way on which subway trains run is the Staten Island Railway. --SPUI (talk) 14:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chick Publications protection
Hi Jim, I've been watching this article from a distance now. Seems that the last edit on the talk page was nearly four days ago. Do you think it's a good idea to remove protection and see if editing will proceed smoothly now? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question on Ruses of War
Hi Cecropia,

Thank you for your great articles! I'm currently developing a short curriculum on war crimes and laws of war for high school students, and found your article on Ruses of War especially helpful. Right now I'm working on a handout that will challenge students to think critically about what is and is not legal war conduct, based on the laws of war. The students will have to analyze a number of brief warfare scenarios and decide whether or not they are acceptable under the war laws. I was wondering if you have citations for your examples of "legitimate ruses", or if you could recommend me a book/publication I can use as a source for generating more scenarios of legitimate/illegitimate ruses of war. Any help you could give me would be most appreciated! Thank you much.
 * My primary source, and one I would highly recommend, is "Laws of Land Warfare" U.S. Army Field Manual FM 27-10. I think there are copies online, but I came up dry just now. If you have a little time, you can readily obtain a copy cheap on eBay.


 * A good discussion of Ruses of War can be found online in The Military Law Review at . I especially point to the comment therein: "military necessity 'admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy.' " This covers a lot in addition to the specifics. If the enemy is watching your movements, and you make believe you are going to attack "here," but instead attack "there," that is a perfectly legimitate ruse of war. You have no responsibility to allow the enemy to obtain an accurate report of your movements or intentions. OTOH, when you effectively ask the enemy to trust you (raise a white flag, then trap the opposite side in an ambush" that is perfidy and a war crime). The key element is betrayal of trust.


 * The central issue in much other of the Laws of Warfare is shockingly simple (and ignored in the modern media and among partisans worldwide): "I won't do it to you and you don't do it to me." Sad to say, multilateral organizations have greatly mudied this simple truth with bias toward one side or the other. Hope this helps. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biekko's RfA
I think you cut short my nomination for adminship. It was supposed to end 18:45 UTC but you closed it at 06:20 UTC. --Bjarki 13:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFA
I wasn't the one who re-added Biekko's nomination, but thanks for the credit anyway. :-)

Anyway, wrt the broader issue, I don't have strong feelings one way or another. I too have promoted early in the past, but like you I tend to leave non-promotions and close calls for the full duration. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to thank you for admining me so quickly. Cheers. Burgundavia 08:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tips for archiving a talk page
Hello. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and would like some tips on how to archive a talk page. The one for Burkhard Heim is over 112 kilobytes long! I wanted to put some effort to summarize the discussion, and split the talk page into different topics as appropriate. However, I would like to be able to preserve the history as well. Do you have any advice for this? Thanks for your help! HappyCamper 14:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uberarticles
First off, the subway car articles were all there; I just organized them.

The problem here is that the common name varies in different places. There is a lot of overlap between streetcar and tram, for example, and creating a fork because of regional differences makes no sense. --SPUI (talk) 20:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your main argument attacks the name. You suggested rapid transit as an alternative. Would you have any objection if I had made what's at urban heavy rail at rapid transit instead? If so, please argue about that issue, rather than what should be a minor issue of what to name the article. --SPUI (talk) 20:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If light rail is a neologism with no specific meaning, then it should be a short page describing its use, AND should have very little linking there, as calling something light rail is meaningless. Would you like to fix the links?


 * Feel free to post the poll, but the wording could use a bit of work. First, tram and streetcar were both separate articles. There should be a separate option about merging those two and having light rail as a short article about usage (since many light rail lines are called trams, like the Midland Metro. And Polls are evil, especially since there was meaningful discussion before you came in and made your demands. --SPUI (talk) 20:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, note how I combined some subway services like the 1-9, F-V and J-Z. This is a similar case. --SPUI (talk) 20:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They do not have discrete meanings; in effect European tram+light rail is equivalent to U.S. streetcar+light rail, with the division between each being fuzzy. Thus there is very significant overlap between streetcar and tram, and keeping the two separate makes no sense. As for light rail, that's so ill-defined that it should either be a redirect to its most common meaning of whatever streetcar+tram becomes, or should be a short page explaining usage. --SPUI (talk) 20:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Metro et al.
Obviously I'm not the one to protect them, as I'm now involved myself. I do consider you an involved admin as *you* seem to be the one disagreeing with SPUI. This is fine, and it's not a big deal. Just go to IRC or the Admin Noticeboard and ask someone to protect, I'm sure they will. Also, if SPUI has violated the 3RR, report it in the appropriate location. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:20, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * No harm done, C. :) I'm glad to see people working together amicably. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I apologize for anything excessive I've done, though I do believe firmly in the merging of these articles. There seems to be a decent discussion now on Talk:Streetcar. --SPUI (talk) 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship
Hi Cecropia. Thanks for dealing with this promptly. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious etc etc etc. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to echo Smoddy's sentiments but re:my own adminship, of course. I will do my best to live up to the responsibility... now to start thanking everyone who voted for me... --khaosworks 07:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)