User talk:Esirgen

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Official name?
I noticed that you moved the Expo line page to Metro Expo Line. However, I would like to keep things consistent, and the other four lines are named LACMTA (color) Line. I personally find "Metro" to be vague; which Metro? Anyway, for the sake of consistency, do you think that it should start with LACMTA or just plain Metro? Hbdragon88 01:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The official name for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is actually "Metro." Please see their Website at http://metro.net. But, OK, for consistency with other Metro lines in Wikipedia, I am moving it back to LACMTA_Expo_Line. -- Esirgen

Expo Page "clean up"?
I dont see how deleting my comments (re: grade separation and safety) and adding redundant info (about the crossings) constitutes cleaning up the page. Plus you moved the grade separation section below stations - leaving several parts (e.g storm drain on overland) outside of it. If you have some problem with something I have written please use talk or add appropriate notations for the things you disagree with. I will restore the missing parts so you can have another shot at it.

Two other things. I agree with you that below grade is highly desirable - but that hardly seems to be appropriate for a wikipedia page. I am not sure about the idea that Metro has committed to grade separation - is there some citation for this commitment? The notion that Metro has committed to anything here (like for example their commitment to the Venice/Sepulveda route from a few years back) see highly questionable. Bruabf 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bruabf,

How is information about the Blue Line relevant to the Expo Line but explicit discussion of the Expo Line rail crossings and grade separation redundant and/or inappropriate?

Note on the subsections: Route subsection is the most relevant -- I have moved this first. Transit parkway and stream daylighting are the key concepts and characteristics for the right-of-way route -- that's why they go into the Route subsection. Stations are obviously the second most relevant -- they go second. Grade separation technicalities come next -- people are not as interested in, as you said. Neighborhood support and opposition are obviously what readers care least about -- they come last.

I have kept your Blue Line discussion after changing your editing style from an argumentative one into an encyclopedic one. You be the judge of whether these comments are relevant to the Expo Line article. You should realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. You should really use available discussion boards, such as the one hosted by the Transit Coalition. There you can engage in such discussions. You don't seem to know much about light-rail or the Expo Line. You should judge your knowledge before editing the Wikipedia article next time. If you need answers to your particular questions, such as about the previous studies for the Expo Line, these could be answered by many in the discussion boards; therefore, I strongly encourage you to join these discussions boards instead.

Esirgen 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very glad that we have the contributions of experts like yourself. You probably know enough to put up your very own page about the expo. Unfortunately, this is Wikipedia where experts have to put up with any old riff raff who knows how to do research. I can see where this would be very frustrating for you. On the other hand, having an outsider perspective just might be a good thing.

FYI – there is nothing wrong with presenting different sides of an argument on Wikipedia so long as the arguments are presented in a factual way and balanced. Quotes from elected officials about the process of planning future metro lines are clearly relevant for the expo line at this point in the planning the process. I am sorry if they don’t match your perspective – feel free to provide a counterpoint (but please don’t delete it a third time).

The redundancy that I mentioned is that we now have all the crossings listed twice with similar information. I understand putting stations with the route description, but I cant understand why you want the paragraph on grade-separated transit parkway listed under “route” instead of discussion about grade separation. What is the reasoning on this? You say they are "key concepts and characteristics or the route". Not until they get decided on (and “preferred design” - preferred by who?).

Being a wikipedia expert I am sure you are aware of the general rule to discuss a change with the author instead of editing it for them. Try to keep that in mind, otherwise you might be the wrong impression that this page is your personal soapbox. - Bruab Bruabf 05:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Expo
Hey look, Im trying to find a solution here that gets the information across accurately and clearly as possible. I would also like to see this page come into line and begin to look like the other 5 pages on the Metro Rail system, Im willing to work with you here, but what I don't want is an editwar. I have a serous problem making a station list on a phase of construction which is still planning (there are 5 stations that may or may not be built depending on which alignment is chosen!!) putting all those stations in the listing and maps are absurd. Discuss the alignment options in the phase 2 section, and feel free to continue to use the map with the options. Im trying to get this article looking like the rest of the LACMTA articles.. and I think that the Phase 1 info is definitely able to start doing that. And step one is a station chart, with Metro's names, and step two is a standardized map, adding those makes this page like every other page. And the old map includes the westside purple line, which isn't decided upon yet. We are here to deliver facts, not dream about how we want stuff to be.RickyCourtney 19:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting all your information from if its not from metro.net or buildexpo.org? The thing about Wikipedia is its like a collection of research reports as much as it is an encyclopedia and a key element to Wikipedia is that anyone should be able to check your facts and see that what you are saying is indeed, unbiased, and based in truth. It concerns me when you say "This information comes from the Expo people. You can't just get information by sitting and browsing the Metro and buildexpo pages." If you are indeed an employee of Expo with "insider" information, make it known, otherwise, how do you know this information and where can others (including other editors) go to find out this information? You said that the Washington/National station will most likely become Venice/Robertson station, and thats fine and we can discuss the stations options and the possible changes in the page, but the thing is... I see no mention of this anywhere on the web on any of the sources I know about. So support that fact, with a verifiable, official source. Oh and on the station name issue, lets use the gold line page as an example, specifically the Highland Park station. The official name is Highland Park and its shown that way on the page not as North Avenue 57/Marmion Way. I understand that names change too, we account for that on the Highland Park station page. Metro changed to the name Highland Park just a few weeks before opening, the station was to be called Avenue 57 station and the station pylons had been made saying that. We have station pages for a reason... so we can use to official names... then expand with more information there, like the cross streets, the address, who designed the station, and about its artworks. RickyCourtney 18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Permission is the name of the game... we need permission. If you can find a way to let Metro release their images and maps under a license that lets anyone use the image for any possible commercial use and alteration go for it (wikipedia's requirement). My maps are not timetable maps, they are line maps and metro has them too, Im not showing every cross-street and every bus connection on the map... thats for the station pages to show. I personally don't put Pico/Flower because metro calls the station Pico... if you need to know where the station is... click on its Name, and you will be taken to a page that expains where the station is and what connections can be made there. Yes metro has better maps than I do... thats because this is their day job and Metro's graphic designers are some of the best in the nation. Im a student who knows how to use Illustrator and I made the maps in my spare time. I don't do this for my own satisfaction... I do it because Wikipedia is a cause I believe in. I don't understand your motivations for editing the Expo page so ruthlessly, you oppose any changes made by other editors and immediately engage them in an edit war, its unproductive, what makes Wikipedia great is the edits of many members, combining their ideas together. To quote the bottom of every edit page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly[...], do not submit it." RickyCourtney 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"the map is NOT original research but layered at and downloaded from NavigateLA.lacity.org"
Then perhaps you should cite that website either on the image or on the page. Morgan Wick 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is now done on the image summary. Esirgen 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Palms Depot overlay map 1951.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Palms Depot overlay map 1951.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VegitaU 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the additions?
I made a simple edit to update the accuracy of the Expo page (noting that there had been accidents on the Gold Line). You adding info about the cause of the accidents being reckless drivers. What is the relevance of the cause? The point about accidents is that they only happen when tracks are at-grade. Accidents are a problem no matter whose fault. Unless you are arguing that westside drivers would never do that sort of thing.--76.90.39.108 12:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC) sorry forgot to log in--Bruabf 12:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just added the details and facts, with appropriate references. I didn't put any further discussion or argument. Esirgen 17:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Expo page discussion
There is a discussion going on about the expo page and how to remove all the bias that is currently in the page (notice the tag at the top of the page?). Instead of contributing to this conversation you simply post more one-sided information. There is no documentation of any of the Phase I news you post, and the city beat article is hardly a source for the latest information on Phase II it is a completely one sided article attacking Goodman. Its pretty much the same type of stuff we just removed from this page. Please try to keep up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruabf (talk • contribs) 10:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I had already read the Discussion. The LA CityBeat newspaper is a popular local newspaper with a large circulation and the author of the article is a prominent local journalist. I think the article is great because it is very comprehensive. If you want to cite other references as well, it's perfectly fine with me. The cover story is clearly and extensively presenting Damien Goodmon's views, the views of Zev Yaroslavsky, Yvonne Burke, Expo staff, Mid-City opposition persons, Cheviot Hills opposition persons, and Friends 4 Expo. I don't see why you consider it "one-sided" information. Esirgen (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles is very one sided - presumably that is by design. I dont usually read citybeat and I have no idea what their standards are. Is this really considered a news article or an editorial? The article is far less balanced than this wiki page, so I use that as a standard (this page has been already been accused of being biased pro metro). Rather than simply deleting it again I will leave the reference but call it what it is - a one sided report.

Next time dont just read the discussion - participate. Bruabf (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Metrobus (Istanbul)
The spelling used by the company on their english language web site is "metrobus" and that is what should be used in the English Wikipedia. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2021
Your edit to Seeking Alpha has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)