User talk:NE2/Archive 17

New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway
Hi and thanks for your contribution to the article. The NYS&W was established in 1881, but its current owner, the Delaware Otsego System was formed in 1980. I'll let you edit that article for the credit.

Kether83 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway
Hi there Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway has been selected for WP v0.7 (Offline edition). Since the article has an under construction and you were the most recent mass editor I was wondering when you believe the article will no longer be under construction? An oldid must be selected for the article by midnight on October 20th. When you believe the article is done it would be helpful if you could do one of three things. Leave a note a WT:OH saying your finished, leave a note here or at my talkpage with news of completion, or add the most recent oldid to this subpage. Thank you for making Wikipedia articles better, and saving this FA. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  17:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It will probably be more than three days... not sure it's important enough to include in WP 0.7 anyway. --NE2 21:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll just include the latest oldid I can get out of it then.  Thanks for the help.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd use the latest one pre-reconstruction, but again I ask why this was chosen? It's a minor branch line. --NE2 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, the team picked a bunch of articles. Core topics, most visited, and highest quality are what were chosen.  Then they threw around a couple algorithms and came up with a enough for an offline edition.  Thanks for the tip.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We've seen that this isn't too "core" or high-quality, and I can't see it being most visited. It seems like we're being told what to do by the algorithms. --NE2 22:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

They came to high quality because of the FA status I believe. But, ya, I hope when we get to v1 its better content than what was chosen. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  22:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait - this isn't showing up in . I also note that the FA BC Rail, definitely a more important topic, and what looks to be a better-quality article, is not listed. This is silly. --NE2 22:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's where they got you. It here.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You can nominate whatever article you would like to see included here. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah - so it's only in because it was mis-tagged as top-importance in Ohio. Sheesh. --NE2 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect:
Yes I know, but the unexpected colon trips up a number of pieces of software, including WP:AWB; simple to get rid of them. Rich Farmbrough, 03:37 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Image request
Could you make a map of Washington State Route 8's former route from US 12 in Elma to I-5 in Grand Mound along with the current routing? The article is a possible GA and I would like it to prepare for GANing. The image should be located at Image:Washington State Route 8 (1964).svg, and thanks! This page was edited by ĈĠ 19:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't you just edit the current SR 8 map? --NE2 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to do it in svg... This page was edited by ĈĠ 20:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't get Inkscape to work. I'll have to have a PNG one. Ugh... This page was edited by ĈĠ 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Otto Perry images
Most were uploaded before our fair use criteria became as precise as they currently are. However, a good proportion of them illustrate things that no longer exist in ways that are essential, not merely decorative. Thus, I think a reasonable approach is trying to sort them into replaceable/unnecessary vs. unreplaceable, which I will attempt to do over the next few weeks as my job & arbcom responsibilities allow. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal on User_talk:MBisanz
Thanks for your help with reverting the vandalism, but I'm not sure block warnings are too useful here. The different IP addresses suggest the vandal is using a proxy to evade any possible blocks... considering they're vandalising an admin's page, I'd say they've already been blocked by MBisanz, and are taking revenge. Phlyght (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ohio Central
Why are you removing the redirects from the constituent lines? I'd think they would be useful. I declined one, without realising it was you, but I' m sill a little puzzled. DGG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quantico (Amtrak station)
I've been debating whether I should add the fact that Quantico (Amtrak station) is practially dominated, if not completley surrounded by the Quantico Marine Base. On the one hand, it makes the article less of the stub it is, and therefore more noteworthy. On the other hand, some radical Islamist, or another type of fanatic could read the thing and decide to make it a target of another terrorist attack, which would make me guilty of compromizing national security. DanTD (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ... --NE2 00:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling I asked the wrong WP:Trains member. DanTD (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling you asked the wrong question - and how do you know I'm not a terrorist? [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --NE2 01:38, 22 November 2008
 * Oh, you're funny! >:P Now I'm going to find smileys that I can post on Wikipedia besides the one you used. DanTD (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Central Branch Union Pacific
If you compare the 1886 Missouri Pacific Annual Report (page 6) to the 1888 Missouri Pacific Annual Report (page 5) you'll see the mileage for Central Branch did not change yet the track in Nebraska was built in 1887 (Annual report 1888 page 2) for a distance of 73 miles. This trackage (in Nebraska) was built by the Missouri Pacific as the Pacific Ry in Nebraska.

Ultimately the trackage in Nebraska became part of the Missouri Pacific (not for sure of the year) and the Central Branch was Merged in 1909 with the Missouri Pacific. Just FYI it was reported by Missouri Pacific TImetable #1 Western District dated Nov 27, 1966, the Nebraska trackage was listed as the Hastings subdivision of the Omaha division.

The Atchison and Pike's Peak Railroad was built under the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 as one of the transcontinental railroads with the lofty goal of reaching the Pacific ocean and not as one of the branches of the Union Pacific Railroad. The owners changed its' purpose because they could no longer get land grants from the federal government under the act.

""staying with one or the other until 1991""

As it reads, the branch did not bounce back and forth between the UP and the MP over the years. It was first leased and then merged in 1909 with the Missouri Pacific which in turn in 1982 merged with the Union Pacific.

Something that could be added is that the rail line from Frankfort to just past Clyde was filed for abandonment and in 2001 a 10 mile section from Blue Rapids to Waterville, ks, was purchased by a historical society to preserve the history of the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obermeyern (talk • contribs) 13:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Help
Since you seem the most acquainted with Wikiformatting, could you see what is happening when I attempt to add a shade of gray to this table? CL — 18:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that mikm automatically creates the cells. Put the bgcolor after the row-creating code, like so: |-bgcolor=e7e7e7 |SR-1 --NE2 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, got it. Thanks - CL — 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

CL and N railway
Thanks for the link to the redirect guidance, it's relevant to editing i've been doing, though I'm not convinced with some of the arguments. Unfortunately you reverted all the reformatting I did including some non-controversial formatting improvements.? The google book links automatically redirect to the generic pages. Well done on adding citations to the article, this has brought it from a C to at least a B class. If it gets removed from FA, I don't think it would take much to get it to GA. The external links need accessdates, Tom B (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't redirect for me... and which links need accessdates? --NE2 19:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It maybe that they are in your search cache. You can ask someone else if they redirect.  ? Nearly all the external links need accessdates including the google book links. Tom B (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, those are convenience links. Accessdates are for when you're citing a website that may go down. --NE2 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh and Beck's Run
Thanks. The official name of the stream, however, is Becks Run, without an apostrophe. Do you have a map of this line? I'm trying to find out if it stopped at Becks Run and the Monongahela, or if it continued up Becks Run to the coal mines there. I suspect that the railroad was a legal fiction, to extend the P&LE into territory beyond its original charter, but I could be wrong. Pustelnik (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I set up an internal link for the Smithfield Street Bridge, which carried railroad tracks at one time, but no longer, but I'm not sure that the article is a big help. I have seen tracks running from there to the old Jones and Laughlin Steel Company, also long gone. the tracks run parallel to the south bank of the Monongahela River. Becks Run itself is just east of where the J&L mill was located. There are old Pittsburgh maps showing rail track running from the Monongahela along Becks Run, more-or-less along part of the route of Becks Run Road. The railroad may pre-date the road, and I'm trying to document that. Pustelnik (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have identified the railroads. The Baldwin map of 1877 has Becks Run for its northern border. The railroad along Becks Run is a Hays Bros. Coal RR. The Becks Run article has an engraving of the mouth of the stream, showing a steam engine on this railroad. Another railroad crosses this on a trestle, and this should be the PV&C RR. The trestle was still there in the 1950's, but I'm not sure that the railroad was. The P&BR would have been closer to the river, and at a lower elevation. Pustelnik (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * PV&C was the Pittsburg, Virginia & Charleston, later called Pittsburg & Lake Erie.LeadSongDog (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No - the PV&C was the Pennsylvania's line. See my reply on Pustelnik's page. --NE2 02:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Continued there.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh, Virginia and Charleston
Thank you for your efforts on the Pittsburgh, Virginia and Charleston Railway, I really appreciated them. Sorry about Interstate 99, I lost an article about "Ann Arbor (non-existent person)" to a sililar lack of sense of humor. It all worked out in the end. Pustelnik (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RAIL Redirect
Now it is under discussion. See both WT:RAIL and WT:TWP. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Query
I am a bit baffled by this. Did you post it in the wrong section or something? It doesn't seem to contain anything relevant, unless I am missing something. --John (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you joking? --NE2 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Unless you are showing that Jimbo moved something to his own blog. I hardly think the two cases are comparable though. --John (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're just being deliberately dense when you ask if I posted it in the wrong section. --NE2 04:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems a highly tenuous connection for you to make for two reasons. One is that the Jimbo sex scandal was a major gossip story back in March, placing it in a different class entirely from these people bickering over who said what about Marilyn Monroe's dress. The other is that while people half-jokingly refer to Jimmy Wales as a god-king, we all know that he does not create policy or precedent by his actions. --John (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC) amended --John (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard M. Nixon Parkway
I've removed the merge tag here; no one seems to have commented since you proposed the idea in December 2007. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminal Railroad
Hi NE I always your appreciate your immense work. However, I think you have considerably mangled the renaming and rewriting the Terminal Railroad article. I don't think you fully understand the concept. Terminal railroad is a legal vehicle in which railroads jointly operate (and own) the switching operations. This is considerably different from a simple switching operation which can be owned by one railroad. You made matters worse by deleting the reference to joint railroads which is the European version (and then you added a template saying that the article you wrote youself is too U.S. centric!!!!). And further underscoring the misunderstanding you added Kansas City Southern to the St. Louis Terminal Association Article. St. Louis Terminal Association clearly states on its website that KC Southern is not an owner of the St. Louis Terminal Association. Unless it can be fixed, I think that all of your edits need to be reverted to before you started. Americasroof (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Can you restrict disambiguation to the article namespace only? I just don't see much point in doing this. -- Cyde Weys 04:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I usually do, but I figured... why not? It won't happen again [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] I also sometimes disambiguate when someone has a list of articles they created. --NE2 04:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to be an administrator?
Would you like to be a Wikipedia admin? Your work looks good and I only see a few minor issues - a quickly-cleared block last December, a more-recent use of rollback that arguably should have been handled by a manual edit, and some very minor tiffs.

The questions you'll have to answer before accepting any nominations are:


 * Do you want to be an admin?
 * Would being an admin help you help the project?
 * People expect admins to maintain their cool. Sometimes this means staying silent in an emotional issue or delaying speaking a few hours or days even though you are in the right.  Can you do this on the rare occasions that you currently don't?

If you are interested in being an admin, wait until January then contact me and I'll check your recent history and unless something goes downhill fast, I'll nominate you. Why wait? In general, any block less than a year back is going to raise red flags. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha... I don't think it would work. Check my recent Wikipedia-space contributions [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] (PS: the block was two years ago; I'm not sure which rollback you're talking about, unless it's cleaning up after Askdasjbf32974/Czecj Kazinski/Jiony10283712974) --NE2 06:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jumping in with my unsolicited opinion - I've looked through your contributions, and everything checks out. Consider running, because chances are, you'll receive the mop and bucket in no time. -- Flewis (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, you are right about the time, I'll nominate you now if you like. I must've missed your controversial discussions, if you think those will be a problem get ahead of the curve and explain that you will use the tools responsibly.  There are plenty of people out there who are strong and opinionated but when it's actually time to make a judgment call they go by the book, not by what they want.  Show that you are one of these people and it shouldn't be an issue.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

July 29 in rail transport
I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atDeletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 24#Category:Terminal railroads
I was sure that I had added this to the bot queue but it was not there so I readded it. While I have you, could you look at this discussion and see if there is a better category name? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiCup
Hi.. please don't do that again. The idea is to have a friendly competition with the goal of building articles, specifically getting articles to GA and FA status. It's not an MMORPG idea, there's no 'leveling up' involved; it's just a friendly competition to make articles better. Nothing more.// roux    20:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard
People often assume you can post any proposal under the sun on the admin noticeboard. It's supposed to be a page for stuff of interest to administrators on this Wikipedia. Simple English Wikipedia is a distinct project, and canvassing for votes may skew the discussion.  Majorly  talk  19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * People often assume they can remove any section they don't like from the admin noticeboard [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --NE2 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not the case here. It's off-topic for the page, quite clearly. Why would English Wikipedia admins need to know about a proposal to close an unrelated Wikipedia project? I cannot think why they would. I have removed similar posts from pages in the past.  Majorly  talk  19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chicago Transit & Railfan
I was concerned, and I found the new webhost already. I told TheCatalyst31 about it last month. DanTD (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

cite ngs
Thanks for noticing the problem with cite ngs. Merge had to go the other way though: from template:cite NGS to cite ngs. Thanks. --DRoll (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Template:Cite ngs needs to be deleted so Template:Cite NGS can be moved over it. --NE2 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I got a little confused about which you ask for the merge to go and I panicked. I think I have it right now. Thanks again. --DRoll (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Youngstown and Southeastern Railroad
- Dravecky (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

H.B. Hays
I just wanted to let you know that I started an article for the H.B. Hays and Brothers Coal Railroad H.B. Hays was a director of the Pittsburgh, Virginia and Charleston Railroad, and this is the steam railroad going up the valley in the engraving attached to the H.B.  article. (Becks Run) now on to document the incline! Pustelnik (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC) The Pittsburgh, Virginia and Charleston is the train crossing the trestle from right to left. Pustelnik (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing for a map you created
I was wondering if you could take care of this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Categorizing Redirects
I had seen but had perhaps not properly absorbed it. I find it odd that one of the first sentences is "Most redirects should not be categorized. Examples include misspellings, minor variations of article titles, obscure alternate titles, and abbreviations," while titles of these sort comprised the majority of properly templated redirects that I left alone. In fact, I saw many redirects of this sort that were not categorized; should I have been adding categories to these articles?

I disagree with some of the categorization guidelines. In general I feel that placing a redirect in a category is equivalent to advertising an article that does not exist, or should not exist. I will, however, abide by the established guidelines and be more careful in my treatment of redirects in the future.

hbent (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the point you are making, and in fact it was one I considered at the time. But if an subject was not notable enough to have its own article, why is it important enough to be placed with in a category, implying that it does or should have a standalone article?  I would actually be more comfortable with redlinks in a category, implying the expectation of a properly sourced article, than I would with a blue link that was merely a redirect to a topic that was not adequately covered by the target of the redirect. hbent (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose I stand corrected, and I will not remove categories from redirects in the future unless I hear otherwise. hbent (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong section in RfAr
Thanks for the observation. Corrected. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm an admin
And you're on the third revert. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all; I'm rather supportive of removing trivial information, actually. But in an article where there's little else to note, what is a "trivial database error" becomes an interesting bit of encyclopedic information. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the article should exist is a different matter, but while the article exists, I think that piece of information should stay. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What sense does it make to remove it? Wikipedia isn't paper, and its database isn't full. Wouldn't we want something to attract readers who aren't roadgeeks, or should we keep it to straight turn-by-turn route description and designation history? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of arguing this. It's perfectly valid information, and I see no legitimate reason whatsoever for removing it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

New Map for CSXT
Nice new map, Image:CSX Transportation system map.svg, for CSXT article, but I thought the zoom in quality of the old map, File:CSX map.svg, was easier to see the detail. Any possiblity you can zoom in the map? BeckyAnne(talk) 01:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's better to see the whole U.S. when dealing with a Class I. --NE2 01:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Short-line route maps
Can you recommend a source for usable route maps of Northeast short-lines? Thanks. --Coosbane (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Queens Village (LIRR station); an old issue
Since you created the Queens Village (LIRR station) article, and only Hempstead Branch trains tend to stop there(I tried to get one to Carle Place (LIRR station) from there once, and they forced me to double back to Jamaica (LIRR station) and get a transfer.), is there really any point in including the Main Line/Port Jefferson Branch in the routebox, as seen below?

If not, I'm thinking of replacing it with an all Hempstead Branch routebox. DanTD (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - you seem to be right. Maybe some used to stop there, but it appears to be served by only Hempstead Branch trains now. --NE2 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just replaced it, and I'll move it to the infobox later. For the record, the trip that I tried to get from Queens Village to Carle Place was in the Summer of 2005. It would be kind of cool if there were occasional stops for the main line at that station which made leaving it up acceptable, but I don't think that's the case. DanTD (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mission Impossible Redirects
I saw your note, and fully agree with the policy, but in this case the changes I am making are purely corrections. That is, Mission Impossible 3 or Mission Impossible III becomes Mission: Impossible III. There is no possible reason not to correct the text, which uses the wrong name.

In general, of course, redirects may have considerable value, particularly when they are pointing to a section in an article that may later be expanded, or to a word that may have more than one meaning but at present only has one article. That is not the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you're also changing the appearance of the page, go for it. But a change like Mission: Impossible to Mission: Impossible should not be made. --NE2 03:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. That is not a good change - and I suspect I just made it. Oops. In fact, if I have the energy, I may go through and do the reverse: look at links to Mission: Impossible and see if they should not be made links to Mission: Impossible or Mission: Impossible - which would making renaming easier, if it happens, which I doubt.


 * I am trying to sort out this cluster to try to clarify access statistics, part of a debate on what "Mission Impossible" should point to: the article on the original TV series or a disambiguation page. Rather than rely on opinion or theory, it seems to useful to consider facts: what are most users looking for when they enter the term? See the fairly lengthy discussion at Talk:Mission: Impossible. Any opinions would be welcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcontinental bridges.
While "Transcontinental" is generally taken to mean from one end of a continent to other, major bridges/tunnels might link one continent (or parts thereof) to another, and are a kind of Transcontinental.

Therefore List of bridge-tunnels should at least be mentioned on the Transcontinental railroad‎ page and visa versa.

Tabletop (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it's not making sense. "Transcontinental" means "across the continent", and has nothing to do with crossing water. --NE2 03:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

KOKC
If you want to renom the KOKC-AM redirect, you are more than welcome. I am trying to get it to a deletion review that it did have....but I am being blocked at each place. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 4, 2009 @ 00:35
 * Because at this point you all have blocked me at every chance to nom it for deletion. You keep reverting my deletion nom.  So, I am going to leave the useless redirects deletions up to you.  If you want to supersede the deletion process and deletion discussion (which you all are doing) I am letting you. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 4, 2009 @ 00:47
 * Well, when I nominated KOKC-AM for deletion by G4, it was reverted. That seems like blocking my every move (and I don't mean blocking like blocking all edits, just this one). -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 4, 2009 @ 00:52
 * So, you were blocking my every move. Nice.  Anyway, I have nom'd it on RFD and that should take care of it, if it isn't AGAIN reverted. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 4, 2009 @ 00:59
 * I have looked at the directions and I am not quite sure how to list it. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 4, 2009 @ 01:09
 * Getting a little snippy aren't we? I did all that, it shows on the February 3 page, but not on the main page.  If there is a technical glitch that is preventing that, that isn't my problem. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 4, 2009 @ 01:34
 * Excellent, now that we got that all taken care of :) - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 4, 2009 @ 01:39

VVRR
Hello, I notice you renamed the Vermillion Valley Railroad article to Vermilion Valley Railroad (with one L). Is there a definitive source for this? The Railroad Retirement Board decision linked from the article uses two Ls, as does the Indiana Department of Transportation. On the other hand, though, I see the nearby Vermilion River has one L. (It's both interesting and confusing that the railroad passes through the adjacent counties of Vermillion and Vermilion!)  Thanks Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links! Huwmanbeing &#9728;  &#9733;  12:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

re: External link deletion/substitution
Greetings, NE2

With due respect, reinstatement of the external link in question (http://portjervisny.com) is requested on the following grounds.

1) Until the recent admin response/edit, the external link in question had been allowed to continuously remain on Wikipedia for the past several years during which time a number of other external links had been removed by Wikipedia admin.

2) The site associated with the external link in question has been extant since 1998 - years before Wikipedia was launched. Information now included on Wikipedia had been available on the pre-existing site and has, at least in part, very likely been copied and revised for inclusion on Wikipedia.  While clearly intellectual property of an original nature that is unmistakably identified as copyrighted, plagerism or unauthorized use of the materials on Wikipedia derived from the site in question is not now and will not be alleged by this user.

3) While perhaps not in complete compliance with the " WP:ELNO, particularly reason 1," the external link site was and continues to be a unique, stand alone resource that contains a considerable amount of both broader and more detailed information than that found in the related Wikipedia article. Search engines consistently show that the site in question remains the premier resource of its kind regarding the primary subject to which it is devoted.

4) The sole external link site that has remained following the admin edit does not, in my opinion, conform in any manner to the external link guidelines "particularly reason 1."  Actions taken and explanations given by the adminstrator for the external link revisions therefore appear, in my opinion, to be inconsistent, arbitrary, and capricious.

5) Unlike the actions of user "skumchicken," who had been previously denied inclusion of a link(s) and irresponsibly deleted the longstanding Wikipedia external link in question while substituting it with a link of his/her own, the user who brought this concern to Wikipedia admin's attention was attempting to work within the existing Wikipedia framework for addressing such issues. As a result of trying to apply the appropriate Wikipedia process for resolution of  this matter, the user has, for all practical purposes,  been penalized as a result of attempting to do the right thing.  Such a punitive response discourages rather than encourages working through the existing Wikipedia protocol for redress of such issues and might be considered a justification for acting in a manner like that demonstrated by skumchicken thus potentially increasing  further irresponsible, inappropriate editing and conflict rather than cooperation.

Thank you for considering this earnest request for reinstatement of http://PortJervisNY.com as a legitimate and useful adjunct to the related Wikipedia article. The initial message and response follow.

BTW, my grandfather was an engineer for the Erie Lackawanna and, as fate would have it, I was born in Susquehanna, PA, the sister railroad town to Port Jervis, where I grew up. I'm now back in the NY Southern Tier, near Binghamton. If you haven't already browsed the train section on PortJervisNY.com you may find it holds some material of interest.

Thanks again. PortJervisNYcom (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

External link deletion/substitution

Perhaps a minor issue and not the right forum for requesting an admin review. In which case, apologies from a novice user and a request for info on proper manner for expressing this concern.

The user below has previously had external link(s)removed for non-compliance to guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skumchiken

This user recently added an external link (http://portjervis.com) and at the same time removed an existing external link that has been included on Wikipedia for the last several years. (http://portjervisny.com)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Jervis,_New_York&diff=prev&oldid=268267102—

The site that was recently deleted is diverse, content rich, and regularly updated. The site inserted in its place primarily has RSS feeds on its homepage.

I have edited the Wikipedia page to include the external link that was deleted and left the recently added link in place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Jervis,_New_York

Thank you for contributing your valuable time toward making Wikipedia the outstanding resource it has become and anticipated review of the issue I have brought forth.

PortJervisNYcom (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed both links, and all others except the official site. Please see WP:ELNO, particularly reason 1. --NE2 05:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The link that remains is the official site of Port Jervis, so automatically gets linked as the subject's manner of presenting itself on the internet. Your site, while it may be informative, (a) is not the official site and (b) does not provide anything that cannot itself be on Wikipedia. I doubt that "Skumchiken" got what he wanted, since what is presumably his site was removed too.
 * By the way, you might be interested in the Central New York Railroad article. --NE2 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks anyway, even if I do not feel my reasoned arguments were properly considered. I will try another recourse. PortJervisNYcom (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: WP:PRESERVE
RE: Articles_for_deletion/Eglinton_Bus_Garage_(2nd_nomination)

WP:PRESERVE IS policy, which trumps notability. Ikip (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ASDA
Before you converted ASDA to a disambiguation page, it would have been helpful to readers if you had reviewed all the existing links to that title, almost all of which presumably were for the supermarket chain since that's where the title formerly redirected to. Now all those links go to a disambig page instead of to the relevant article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template deletion
Hi NE2. Regarding DARTimage, you probably know this already and it was just an oversight, but on the offchance you don't, when you mark templates for deletion, the deletion template should be enclosed in noinclude tags so that all articles transcluding the template don't also display the (giant pink) deletion template and show up themselves at CAT:CSD. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Trains
What is wrong with being silly once in a while as a break from the norm? Simplysouth isthisabuffet? 16:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong is that your text was extremely annoying to read. --NE2 16:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

LA Freeways
SR 58 is well outside the Los Angeles area. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And? If you meant to remove it, you didn't do a very good job of it. --NE2 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shoot. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754
Can you tell him to stop intimidating me with useless reasons? --I-210 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but I can tell you to please use edit summaries and discuss things. --NE2 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That edit summary will not do any good but to make matters much worse than we know so there is no way to even to stop this from happening. --I-210 (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're trying to say, but you are certainly a large part of the problem. --NE2 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the same thing Rschen7754's certainly is a large part of the problem. --I-210 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly true, but that doesn't absolve you of responsibility. When most of your edits are reversions, you have probably lost the spirit of encylopedia writing (if you ever had it). --NE2 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if Rschen7754 misused or abused the administrator tools he would be recalled and likely lose his administrator privileges completely. --I-210 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Bart-map.svg
Any idea what happened to the text in the legend? --NE2 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the wikimedia rsvg renderer is screwing up. The SVG looks good in inkscape, firefox, and opera.  Wikimedia must have changed the version of rsvg they are using.  Not sure what can be done about that though.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates you created
A while ago you made several templates like Cite CAstat/title 1895 128 and they seem unnecessary. I'd like to hear your take before I nominate them for deletion. ~EdGl  (talk)  17:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one of the lesser-used ones, but others like Template:Cite CAstat/title 1963 385 are used more frequently, and help avoid errors in the names of the laws. --NE2 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)