User talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2016/Mar

New NY Bridge
Wow, I'm impressed. There's only ONE bridge being replaced in the WHOLE STATE of New York! How DID you determine this? - Denimadept (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is! I couldn't believe it either, but it's the only bridge being replaced IN NEW YORK! Unbelievable, right? I can't believe these upstaters think that their bridge is the only one in New York, because IT IS!!!!!! epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy (bleep)! I am  impressed! - Denimadept (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too! But seriously though, that's the proper name of the bridge, according to the actual bridge builders. epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd bitch at them, but it's almost certainly the most expensive bridge project going on in New York just now.  And I've not yet heard of a final name for the result, so they can't call it that.  Maybe I'll suggest "Denimadept Bridge" to the New York state government and see if they accept that. - Denimadept (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. In the meantime, if a new bridge name comes out, the article can be renamed. Otherwise, Denimadept Bridge it is. epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a proposed name change for the article on the New Tappan Zee Bridge ongoing, relating to this topic. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is it on the talk page? epicgenius (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Leo Baeck Institute page move
Hi there, Thanks for for looking at the Leo Baeck Institute New York page. The original page title, "Leo Baeck Institute, New York" reflects the common usage, because the LBI has three major locations (NYC, London, and Jerusalem). The new title, "Leo Baeck Institute (Manhattan)" is not used. Could you revert the page move please? Thanks, Kevin Kschlot1 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. In the future, you can move the page back yourself, actually. I just moved "Leo Baeck Institute, New York" because it can be confused sometimes with the name of a settlement. However, I see that "Leo Baeck Institute New York" is also used to refer to the name, so to avoid the omission of a comma that would otherwise make "New York" an appositive, I'll move it to "Leo Baeck Institute New York" (only punctuation changed). epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you! I should take the "Be bold" pillar to heart more often. Thanks for moving the page to Leo Baeck Institute New York. Kschlot1 (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Yeah realized as soon as I reverted, was going to revert it back but you did already. Sorry and thanks. Golde62 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for accidentally pressing the rollback button. I was actually going to post on your talk page about that, but some other javascript tools had not loaded yet, so when they loaded, instead of going to the "talk" button, they went to "rollback" right next to it. Again, sorry about that. I hope we can come to an agreement on this. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems you reverted it back to state he is a politician. Golde62 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to have a discussion on the wording first before it is changed again. epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Saturday, March 5: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sea Beach Platform Layout Changes
Hey again, I was wondering why hasn't the platform layout for all of the Sea Beach stations been changed to this since the N won't return to it's normal service pattern until 2018?

AahdTahar (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I can change the platform layout, but this involves hardcoding the table manually. epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yipes. They used to be so easy to change, cause I remember when I was editing the 7 line stations to include 34 St as it's new terminus, it used to be so easy, but now everyone made one template for all of the stations.


 * Well, I finished updating these links. I made S-line/NYCS left/Flushing for Hudson Yards, so that was easier. However, we can't just make a "temporary" template for these service changes, so I coded them manually. epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice, many thanks! :D

Drumpf
Wow, this has become such as mess. Hopefully Donald J Drumpf will be merged to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Then we can close these multiple delete/merge/redirect discussions and just focus on the LWT article itself. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree totally. However, now what with the Drumpf article being covered in news and social media, things are about to become yet more complicated. In the meantime, we should work on the episode article, and maybe even elevate it to Good Article status. epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So you are trying to promote your personal beliefs? I thought that was verboten in favor of dealing with actual facts, even when you don't like them.  Speaking of facts, can you support this argument you just made?   "we don't cite sources that cite wikipedia as a source to cite information!" --Potguru (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If by "personal beliefs" you mean "supporter of either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton," then no. Also, please see WP:SUBJECT. Specifically that section. epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I meant "Hopefully Donald J Drumpf will be merged to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)" I don't care about your political leanings.  It is clear that you believe it should be merged, I think it should not because it is a stand alone subject.  The fact that the page has been mentioned by several well known news sources and by the subject "itself" is quite telling and demonstrate that the article is worthy of standing on it's own.  You cannot make the same claims with the other article, which remains a short blurb about a TV show.  Thanks for pointing me to that text it clearly says that there are times when the encyclopedia itself becomes noteworthy and that is exactly the situation we have here... with the major media coverage of the wikipedia article. --00:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then policy will decide whether the articles should be merged. And it's hardly "major." Two sources? I don't exactly call that viral. epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep
I forgot to turn the "Drumpfinator" back off before that edit. It's been on and off and on and off all day. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A fun app, it is. Just make sure it's not messing up any wiki editing. It causes a whole lot of problems. ;-) epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Drumpf to Donald Trump redirect
I don't see any discussion there about redirecting Trump to Drumpf. Please refrain from adding that redirect to Trump's article, unless/until there is consensus to do so at his Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The redirect from Drumpf to Trump is discussed here, and pretty in-depth. The redirect discussion is not on the talk page. epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You continue to add a redirect from Trump to Drumpf. That is not currently a topic of discussion. It's also ridiculous.CFredkin (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment there. Not here. Yes, adding the redirect to Trump's article is ridiculous, but so is edit-warring on Drumpf's article over where it should redirect, which, if you may noticed, has happened. epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not adding a redirect from Drumpf to Trump. You're adding a redirect from Trump to Drumpf.  That's not under discussion.CFredkin (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to sort this all out, as I think we are talking about different things. I am adding redirect from Donald Trump, the link in which leads to Donald J Drumpf. I am redirecting Donald Drumpf from "Donald Trump" to "Donald J Drumpf." Adding redirect on the "Donald Trump" article, while should not be appropriate, is one of two options I have for redirecting readers. The other discussion is to redirect "Donald Drumpf" to "Donald J Drumpf" directly, but I cannot do that because I cannot change the redirect while the RFD is ongoing. epicgenius (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's outrageously POV to add that redirect from Donald Trump to the Drumpf article. Try adding a redirect to the SNL parodies of Hillary Clinton at the top of Hillary's BLP and see what kind of reaction you get to that.CFredkin (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the inappropriateness of this situation. But Donald Drumpf does redirect to Donald Trump, so redirect goes on the latter. Saturday Night Live parodies of Hillary Clinton does not redirect to Hillary Clinton, so redirect cannot go on the latter. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion you keep pointing me to relates to redirecting FROM Drumpf TO Trump. It does NOT discuss redirecting FROM Trump TO DRUMPF, which is what you've repeatedly tried to do.CFredkin (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now I understand what you're talking about. You are saying that I keep putting the template "Redirect" from Trump to Drumpf. I know I should not do that. But the redirect (as in the template) should be on the Trump article if the Drumpf article redirects (as in the action) to the Trump article. I looked at the situation in a very technical way, as in "If article X redirects to article Y when X should really redirect to Z, then a redirect template should be put on Y, linking to Z, to point people who had been redirected from X toward Z." epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Shiny stuff
I just now noticed that among the "bling" you have collected over the years you display two 100000 Edit Awards. I find it necessary to bring to your attention the fact that only one of the awards is the "real deal" 100% authentic solid gold genuine "not to be mistaken for a fraud" 100K Award. The other is a counterfeit plaster imitation forged fake and a pseudo synthetic plastic pretender. One deserves a place on your mantle while the other is no better than a door stop. The fact that you display them together is an affront to the now 360 other recipients of the Award. Do with them as you will, but let us not deceive your visitors that they are the same. One is a treasure - the other is a fraud. Buster Seven   Talk  07:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. Which one is a fake? I have been carrying around two 100000 Edit Awards for one year. I don't know which one is genuine and which one is the fabrication. Apparently, the manufacture of fake Edit Awards nowadays is such that they look, feel, seem, and act like the real Edit Awards in every way. Thanks again. epicgenius (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Real Award has rid itself of the useless comma for a cleaner, sleeker, trendier, more Modern look in response to tweeting and texting and the rest. The fake retains the Old-fashioned and "out-of-style" comma. Plus, the real Award comes with my signature of authentification. You seem to have misplaced that signature which explains your confusion. One award is Solid Gold, the other is gold leaf over plastic. Buster Seven   Talk  12:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. My fraud investigation team (i.e. me) is on it and will have the forged award, with the old-fashioned and "out-of-style" comma, removed shortly. epicgenius (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

SFOBB Eastern Span Galaries
Greetings:

Your recent effort on reformatting the galleries appears to me to be, in my opinion, a step backwards. As a single example please compare the Cable Images gallery before and after your modifications. Under Chrome, Safari, and Firefox, even some of the images are only partially displayed and the gallery layout is extremely inconsistent from row-to-row. The rightmost image on my 13" Macbook Air (pixel count equivalent to a Macbook Pro 15") caption text is displayed as:

Unwindi ng from its spool, a strand passes through severali launch guides.

This as the image is half the width of other items in the row. Also, no images have frames as were present before your modifications.

Would you care to comment, modify, revert, or defend this work?

Sincerely,

Leonard G. (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's weird, since I use a 13-inch MacBook Air and it didn't exactly display that way. I should probably modify these when I get a chance. Thanks for the notification. epicgenius (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I am running OS X 10.10.5 (Yosemite).

I would suggest a complete revert as a complete initial fix with small scale experiment and testing. (In any event, I really don't see the benefits or utility of the changes at all). Leonard G. (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I will revert myself and see which ones are bad. I am running El Capitan, version 10.11.2. Maybe that is the problem. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC

More problems
I reverted your two recent edits after your rollback, restoring all of the source from the original before any of your edits, this as the galleries were still very irregular. Could you please tell me just what problems you are trying to fix? It (literally) took me and several other editors years to get the galleries layout and general article flow correct. Is it possible that you are having problems with a mobile device (other than your MB Air)? I do not doubt that your edits are in good faith, so lets work together to address your concerns from a discussion of perceived flaws or a desire for improved functionality and/or aesthetics.

Best wishes.

19:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. Here is what I see for the "Cable images" gallery. It looks very unusual, what with all the images being of different widths and widths (unlike some of the other galleries). I appreciate the effort you expended to size the galleries in just the right order. However, is it possible that you may not have properly resized the "Cable images" gallery? Thanks again. epicgenius (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, as they say, "That is a feature, not a bug". I went back to a September 2013 edition and the cable gallery appears identical. Some other galleries appear more regular because of the similar aspect ratios of the images. Close inspection of some of these will reveal smaller but similar artifacts of display due to these differences. The regularity of the framing is the important part of the feature in that the flow of the gallery will change the count-per-row of the images in a consistent manner as a window is resized. With the changes you have worked out, the height is consistent across the row but the width of the frame will very, this in turn causing extreme flow problems with the caption text. It also leads to a row-to-row "jumble" of images, with no consistent spacing as the images are visually scanned, leading to an almost collage-like appearance.


 * The only "cure" for the problem you perceive that would retain the current advantages of consistent image and text flow would be to reduce the variation of aspect ratio and caption text character count; hat would in some cases require the loss of important information.


 * My assertion is that the layout as you found it is the best compromise of usability, aesthetics, and functionality, but of course that is only my opinion. If I have not convinced you at this point than I suggest that this entire discussion be moved to the article talk page and I will contact a few fellow editors to weigh in on this.


 * Thanks for your patience, Leonard G. (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I will open up a discussion on the talk page later. Thanks again, though. epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

r46 on the r line
there are 232 r46 cars on the r not 252 i dont know how to fix the error 68.194.58.163 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You should edit Template:NYCS const. Anyway, I've fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Bernhard Goetz.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bernhard Goetz.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

March 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

marissa alexander
Nobody died in that case, why did you move it into a deaths cat? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have undid it for now. I will fix the categorization later. 18:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the page on On time performance
Hey, I've been doing a lot of edits on this page, and I'm not sure that the title "Calculation" is really right. My plan was that this section is really an overview, and not a section for detailed calculations. Notice that there are formulas in a different section of the article, I think 4 in other sections, and not in that one, so I guess it's not really a calculation section.

You've created some headings under calculation, which are specific to some transport modes. There are lots of these (at least a dozen), so if we retain these headings, I (or someone) will need to fill out the article with the others, such as ferries, commuter rail, freight rail. I'm happy to do this, but it will make the article much longer....

I've only just started making changes to Wikipedia so I assume there are many rules that I am not familiar with, and I am happy to be guided. I plan to update several pages or more on transport related topics, I was planning to fix them one at a time. My next target was to be Loading Factor, and then after that maybe Grade Separation. The number of different topics on transport is very large, and there is seemingly a never ending stream of pages to update. I would love suggestions and assistance along the way...

I wrote to another one of you guys (powerusers?) about the changes I am making. As I said to him, I am attempting to contribute to what I think is a worthwhile project, and I would appreciate any comments on how to build trust with you guys. 203.9.151.254 (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's not really a good title. I'll have to change it soon. Thank you for pointing this out.Anyway, I'm a transport buff. I would like to help you as much as I can in improving these articles, so if you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Thanks again, epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BS13
Template:BS13 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political positions of Ted Cruz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interventionism. 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) 11:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You were pinged
…at KateWishing's Talk page, because you registered a complaint about my article tagging at my Talk page. Your particular objection was to the state that I left Brighton_Beach at the end of an editing session. The essay reply at Kate's page regards the value of a cooperative writing context that takes seriously both annotating a substandard document (article)—where substandard is defined by in-place, agreed upon policies—during its progress toward becoming a document of real quality, and the importance of being honest with readers regarding poor document quality in the interim. These are the bottom-line aims of placing, and leaving tags, and this is discussed in the wall-of-text at Kate's Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Subst'ing prior to TfD
Please do not substitute templates prior to launching a TfD, as you did for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Doing so can influence the result of the TfD and be difficult to undo in some cases, since the only way to track where previous transclusions were is user contributions. It didn't matter much here, and it's not a big deal - just something to think about in the future. ~ RobTalk 16:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the friendly note. I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that. epicgenius @ 17:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=712120666 your edit] to Verrazano–Narrows Bridge may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Verrazano Bridge as appeared in 2011.jpg

Your GA nomination of Second Avenue Subway
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Second Avenue Subway 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Trump segment
Thanks for your work on this article. I've requested a copy edit for the article, and I hope you will consider nominating it for Good status when you think it meets criteria. :) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for working hard on the article as well. Maybe we should consider nominating it for good article soon. I think it meets most of the criteria. epicgenius @ 23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to co-nominate, if you prefer. I usually wait until after the article has been reviewed by a copy editor, but that's not necessary if you want to nominate before then. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, you should co-nominate the article. Let's wait for the copy edit, though. Thanks again. epicgenius @ 23:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second Avenue Subway
The article Second Avenue Subway you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Second Avenue Subway 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)