User talk:NE2/Archive 3

User talk:BWCNY

 * It's my (TALK) page and I can say anything and deleteing that I wanted. Also, It does not go towards/effecting to anybody else or Wikipedia site. If I offend you, then I would say SORRY right now.

AND HERE's the PROOF and IF U can read it CORRECTLY:

AWB, category sorting
hi there, does category sorting in AWB finally works for you? you posted a problem here but in the newest version it still seems to break for example  to  --gregul talk


 * I haven't tried recently. Sorry. --NE2 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hideaway Park, Colorado
Why are you wasting both our time on this? If you like redirect, else I will Afd. --meatclerk 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do that. I know what the result will be - merge and redirect. --NE2 05:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

River LINE (New Jersey Transit)
Let's get together at the talk page for the above article and decide on a title. We seem to be in an edit war that is creating multiple double redirects. Let's resolve this quickly. Alansohn 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

River LINE station articles
I've reverted your addition of Category:Pennsylvania Railroad stations to the River LINE station articles. The River LINE stations are only a few years old, and all were created long after the PRR stopped operating. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad
Sorry about that; I should be more careful about checking edit summaries in the future. You were right to remove it if it's causing serious technical problems. Is there a way to link the image (which is very useful and illustrative) without including it inline? --CComMack (t–c) 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Edit to Osceola Parkway
I was making other edits to the article, so I did it anyway. Was it necessary to edit the article just to reconnect the SR links to redirects? I think the WP:USSH guideline only applies if that's the only edit you are making. If you have another substantial edit to make to the article, then why not fix the links while you're at it? It saves Wikipedia's precious bandwidth not having to click a link to go through two or more different pages before your destination. I don't think the average Wikipedian is going to care what the piped link links to as long as the text that is after the pipe remains the same.

While I agree that making edits solely to "fix" piped links is a waste, I don't think it's wrong to do it during a more substantial addition of information to an article. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Florida State Road 429
Any changes I made/make to Wikipedia articles are done in good faith. You may not have liked my wording but I don't appreciate what I added being called a "hatchet job". You made updates today regarding the new section opening to I-4 yet you left errors behind yourself, which I fixed. Unless you're perfect, please give constructive criticism rather than name-calling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KINGBOBOFTHENORTH (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Virginia State Route 234
Alrighty. I was just going with the most approriate syntax i could think of at the time.  RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk''' 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

LIRR
On the talk:Atlantic Branch page I've asked you to source the name. Jd2718 01:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for refs. The first, I rolled my eyes, I know new managers make up names. But the track schematics... those have to go back. I have to admit I have always had much more subway and MNCRR stuff than LIRR. Good catch on Rail Road, btw. Jd2718 02:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I saw and partially reverted your changes on the Palsgraf article. While I do not doubt that you are correct in the name of the railroad, the page is about the case, and we should use the case name acually used by the New York Court of Appeals. The court's website uses the term "Railroad" and on the basis of that I changed the bolded title of the case and its name in the table. Since doing that (and the prior version of my comments here) I have been doing some more research, and I have found references to the "Rail Road" usage as well. What we really need is for someone to look up the case as reported (in the NE reporter or state reporter) to get the actual name, and conform the article title, and the wikipedia cross-references, to that format. I placed such an inquiry at Talk:Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. If you want to discuss, let's do it on that talk page. Thanks. Kablammo 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)   Kablammo 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

PRR naming
Could you be a little more clear about what you mean by "official name"? The material in the CT1000 is, I suppose, as good as anything as far as being official, even if some branches are named "X Track" or "X Railway" rather than "X Branch". Choess 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Baxter's Bus Lines
It is extremely poor form to simply remove a deletion proposal. There is a process in place. If you have something to contribute to a deletion debate, add it on the talk page and help form a consensus. If you're just out to save public transport-related articles from the axe, why not give us a hand over here? Joestella 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I owe you an apology. I was expecting the afd tag to be added in its place, but now I see that this is not required. No hard feelings? Joestella 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Boxes
I think it's all fixed now. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work making the templates practical and correcting my mistakes (I had no inking just how complex the Long Island was). FYI, I'm keeping a list of orphaned templates at User:Mackensen/Orphaned transit boxes. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, S-jnct now handles row-hiding. Mackensen (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights
Holy bleep. I had no idea the Centennial History had gone out of copyright. What I find more interesting is that "The Pennsylvania Railroad Company; Corporate, Financial, and Construction History of Lines Owned, Operated and Controlled to December 31, 1945 (4 vol.), prepared by Coverdale and Colpitts, consulting engineers" is not in there, either (unless I'm screwing up the search). That would be a real coup to get online &mdash; the Centennial History was written by employees of C&C, but the 4-volume work covers the entirety of the PRR and its development, whereas the Centennial History can be annoyingly erratic in its omissions. Unfortunately, only about 100 copies were printed, and the last time one went on the market that I know of, five years ago, it went for at least $1600. There's a copy at the Hagley, but I don't know that I have the brass to ask Chris Baer for permission to scan the whole thing. Choess 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have the interlocking diagrams you're looking for, although I'll go digging through my folder of maps to see if I made a copy of one once. The best sources for this would probably be the High Line "Towers and Interlockings" series, the Philadelphia Improvements publications (also from the PRRT&HS), and Triumph III. I'm going home to Pennsylvania this weekend and will have access to all of these; is there anything in particular you wanted to find out, like which parts were Junction RR, PB&W, etc.? Choess 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha. What you'll be wanting then is a map printed in the November 1982 issue of Rails Northeast showing all tracks (with lengths and car capacities, etc.) from OVERBROOK to ZOO (incl. of course VALLEY/JEFF). I'll see what I can do about digitizing it over Christmas. Choess 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Regretfully, I've had to block you from editing, for 24 hours, due to 3RR violation at Barrington Hall. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the dispute resolution process, so that you can make good use of it, upon your return. Apologies, and thanks for your time. Luna Santin 09:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, so people can remove the link under false pretenses, and if I try to do what's right I get blocked? The last guy claimed there was consensus to remove it when there is clearly not. I decided to check out a situation I saw on WP:ANI as an uninvolved party, and gave my opinion. I then saw several people reverting without attempting to discuss and claiming consensus where there was none. Why was I the one to be blocked? Are our rules really this inflexible? Luna, can you please look at the issue and explain why the video is not a good external link? I would hate to see something like this happen on an article that I am involved in, where several people team up to enforce a false consensus and then get anyone who opposes them blocked. --NE2 09:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do value consensus and discussion -- that's one reason I tend to be pretty careful about enforcing 3RR. :E My experience in major conflicts is that it's best to forget about what the page shows right now; it's usually more important what the page shows five weeks from now, after all the talking is done, and everybody's gone home. 3RR is in place specifically to prevent excessive edit warring. I do believe you deserve a fair block review, however, so good luck to you on that count. Perhaps the next admin to come by will see things differently. Luna Santin 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm staying away from this from now on... it'll be a while before I try to help with a situation as an outsider. --NE2 10:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And now Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is misrepresenting our external links policy, claiming that we can only link to free content (he changed his edit to claim that there's no proof that the copyright holder authorized the upload - tell me, how do we know that the copyright holder of Image:Cerro de la Silla.jpg, todays featured image, is the uploader? We don't; we have to trust the uploader.). I'd reply, but I'm blocked. Why do we operate this way? Does anyone read this? Is this block just a way of shutting me up? Does that template:unblock do anything? --NE2 10:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to decline this myself, but yes, even if you are facing a terrible edit warrior (and you weren't) edit warring in kind isn't acceptable. Use dispute resolution instead.
 * To reply to your comment here in reverting me, "A film my brother Clark (now a video editor in Albuquerque) and I made in 1988" is not all we require. That is a source; we require copyright licensing informmation. I can take a picture myself and not license it under a useable license (e.g. unfree or non-commercial). Even if that statement is true, it would need both brothers for a suitable license, and we have no evidence of that absent one. That's not a big deal, but what's more is that the uploader was asked for a license back in November, and, despite editing since then, still has not done so. In any case, that's not even the argument of some of the others: they see this as a clear issue of reliability of sources, regardess of the copyright. I think you're wasting your energy (and patience) here over what is, in the end, not such a huge issue. Use dispute resolution, by all means, but it's not worth warring. Dmcdevit·t 10:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We, on Wikipedia, require licensing information. On Youtube, videos are not released under a free license; the copyright holder simply gives Youtube the right to display it to others. And if the issue is about its reliability as a source, why is it being removed from external links too? --NE2 10:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Luna, is it against policy to work on a draft of an article here on my user talk page? --NE2 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Contructive editing is never unwelcome. :-) Dmcdevit·t 10:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Not that I know of. Might be a little easier/less messy to edit in Notepad, and just copy-paste into here for "previews," but your call. I'm not vindictive enough to interfere with that, either way. ;) Luna Santin 10:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, ok. I am willing to unblock you in case you promise to be civil and polite with everybody; and drop your aggressive pursuit of the matter. You can use the process of Dispute resolution in case you do not agree what has been said on the WP:ANI page. J.smith has not stated that the link on the Barrington Hall page remains an exception; he has merely stated that some of the YouTube links on Wikipedia can stay. For what reasons and on which pages, he has not stated, and we should not be presumptous. You can approach him on that matter and discuss the issue with him. Dmcdevit is a respectable member of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and I am an administrator. It is because the community believed that we were capable of making good judgments that we were conferred the admin privileges. Please assume good faith with us. All of us are here to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia and make this a better place. Can you assure me that you will respect WP:3RR and other important Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 10:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am done with this issue, and have been convinced that I am better off staying with railroads for now. But J.smith did specifically say that this link is OK copyright-wise. --NE2 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, you should try to be more careful when using AWB; I'd fix it but... --NE2 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked you now. In case the autoblock remains, you can post your IP address here, or send it to me via email. I will unblock that too. Can you specify what is the problem with the removal of that particular YouTube link? &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that it is a relevant link and does not present a problem, any more than any of our hosted image files do. --NE2 11:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I am sorry I missed the J.smith comment. However, the issue is still not clear and it would not be wise to be presumptuous, what say? &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 11:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That free-licensed file that has been released in the public-domain has been uploaded by a user of the encyclopedia. All the featured picture files are released in the public domain, or are creative commons licensed. On the other hand that the link to the file I just removed does not have any license information mentioned on the YouTube page. I believe that the matter is ripe for an RfC. Would you take the prerogative of filing it? &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 11:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I told you that I'm staying out of this now. Until they "come for the railroads" (to probably inappropriately apply a saying about the Nazis), I'm going to leave this behind, unless you have a problem with links to (for instance) . --NE2 11:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am however very confused about this edit. The film was published in 1896; is it not public domain? --NE2 11:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The page to the first link fails to load. About the second diff, I have reverted myself. There is some kind of music as provided in the film and we are still unsure about the publishers. I am giving up on this, temporarily and will discuss the issues with Dmcdevit. However, that is not the case with the majority of my edits. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 11:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize there was music - that could be a problem. If I cared more (read: if this was a subject I was a bit closer to), I'd download it, strip the music, and re-upload it. --NE2 11:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly! That is what User:Gmaxwell stated. Although, there is no provision for keeping video media files over Wikimedia Commons, however the developers and administrators on that Wiki are having discussions over the issue. Hope we can sort this out soon enough. Cheers. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 11:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look here. Those are J.smith's comments. – Talk:Barrington_Hall. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 11:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He made those before he made the comment on ANI. --NE2 11:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have provided further rationale here – . &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} <font color="black" title="Admin logs">{L} 12:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment on my campaign to become an administrator
Hello , I hope that you are having a happy holiay season. I have recently been nominated to become an administrator here on Wikipedia. I am asking that since I have worked with you in the past that you stop by my nomination page and consider entering a vote, hopefully in support of my becoming an administrator.


 * Please feel free to communicate with me on my Talk page at User talk:No1lakersfan if you have any questions or reservations. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube RfC
I've filed an RfC over the YouTube link issue. Argyriou (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

LIRR zones
Here's an image of a list of zones that I was able to find on the open Web, could not find any from the MTA site. Fare Zones --Meadowbrook 23:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even better, thanks for finding the full original PDF. --Meadowbrook 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey sign symbols
You have cleared all images that represent roads in NJ (i.e. Turnpike sign, Parkway sign). You stated that, "The material must contribute significantly to the article and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." How would it be decorative? The image is there to represent the road. The image helps to identify the name of the road.

For example, the "I-78" is used to identify a road, so why wouldn't these signs be acceptable?

Mlaurenti 1:04, December 24th 2006

Re: Maps
So then how exactly do I get a "Free license?" Do I need to write to them and ask for permission? 2:44   December 24th, 2006 Mlaurenti

MSBA Maps
I see that you tagged all my close-ups of sections of an old map from the Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, as having no license. While I didn't actually make the maps themselves(and I admitted it freely), I did make the close-ups. In any case, I need them to prove older road designs and proposals for the highways of Nassau County and vicinity. DanTD 04:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Will this do?

DanTD 15:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well they sure as hell didn't keep these maps within the confines of the MSBA or MTA, they were given to the public. And I certainly gave them credit for it, so it's not like I'm trying to say I drew any of them. Which tag(s) would be appropriate? DanTD 15:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By these standards, we all might as well post nothing, unless we ourselves take these pictures. Either way, these are the only evidence I have of the original and proposed ramps, service roads, and roads themselves. DanTD 16:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair. I just wish I had the exact date for this map. DanTD 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Branch line merges
The succession box discussion got me thinking about the merges you previously proposed: Babylon Branch into Montauk Branch and Ronkonkoma Branch into Main Line (Long Island Rail Road). Describing the LIRR infrastructure was difficult for me until your editing and the station succession talk. I realized services should not be difficult to explain, and they are not as complex as the New York City Subway. I like the organization of the City Terminal Zone, which I started. Standardizing the station tables should now be easy since the services would be clearly defined à la City Terminal Zone. I can handle the station tables while you can complete the merges. You can see further comments at Talk:Babylon Branch. Thanks for bringing me into the light. :-) Tinlinkin 05:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NYCT Bus Depot changes
Is there some reason why you are making those changes? They look kinda unnecessary. <font face="Tahoma"> Pacific Coast Highway  <font color="#0B6D0F">{ Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents! } 18:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Only one of them goes somewhere. The others are just redlinks. Not to mention, they bloat the table. Might I suggest moving those likns to a seperate "related" section or something like that? <font face="Tahoma"> Pacific Coast Highway  <font color="#0B6D0F">{ Ho! Ho! Ho! •  My Presents! } 18:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to mix things together, see East New York Bus Depot. The reason I brought this up is because:
 * The names you present are redundant, they are already in the "streets traveled" field. And if it's that important to you, you can just link to them from there.
 * The table gets bloated with red links (you resolved this, I guess)
 * --<font face="Tahoma"> Pacific Coast Highway  <font color="#0B6D0F">{ Ho! Ho! Ho! •  My Presents! } 19:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I'll re-adjust ENY to those changes. <font face="Tahoma"> Pacific Coast Highway  <font color="#0B6D0F">{ Ho! Ho! Ho! •  My Presents! } 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they split the route. The runs between Broadway Junction and Spring Creek are done by ENY crews, and the full route is done by Fresh Pond buses. <font face="Tahoma"> Pacific Coast Highway  <font color="#0B6D0F">{ Ho! Ho! Ho! •  My Presents! } 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me start here to comment on the NYCT Bus depot changes. I believe these changes is really unnecessary because the original bus route information was given more elaborate details where there exact location, service time, etc on each individual depot roster page. I know you made these changes to formulate in each individual borough bus list page. But, I rather leave the original bus route information in each depot pages alone. BWCNY 06:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Brooklyn
''* Replacing the link to downtown Brooklyn in the lead with a bunch of links to it in the table. The large number of links probably violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links).'' ''* Adding several line breaks. Why?'' ''* Changing Columbia Street on the B61 to Hicks Street. This is not what the main map shows. The B61 map shows that this is a temporary thing until winter 2008, at which time it will return to Columbia Street. On Wikipedia, it is more important to cover what has happened than the current status of something, especially if that current status is temporary. For example, articles on highways generally don't talk about detours.'' ''* Changing the name of the B103 to "B103 Limited". Again, this is not the name the MTA uses:'' ''Can you please explain why you are making these changes? --NE2 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)''
 * I think there's nothing wrong to put Downtown Brooklyn on the destination list. Downtown Brooklyn is a neighborhood name, Why did you remove Brooklyn out? and I don't the large number of links would violated  that policy. It won't lead to bunch up think links. Besides, you did it also, linking the same neighborhood name probably a couple of times.
 * That's my fault mainly due to some errors on my browser.
 * Um, I don't know what are you talking about but, I didn't change that information.
 * You leave it as it is because this route made limited stops unless you wanted add service rime on that page. BWCNY 06:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Downtown Brooklyn is a neighborhood name, Why did you remove Brooklyn out?"
 * Why is it necessary to put Brooklyn on every line? It's obvious that it's downtown Brooklyn, since it's a list of routes in Brooklyn.
 * I don't see what it the issue. If you leave as Downtown with out linking it, it refers to a term. Placing Downtown Brooklyn is a corrected usage to list in the page as a neighborhood name. It will help the reader understand the correct usage of the neighborhood name. BWCNY 07:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

''*"You leave it as it is because this route made limited stops unless you wanted add service rime on that page."
 * The name of the route is the B103. If you want to note that it's a limited stop route, that can be done in the notes column.
 * If you wanted to put limited stop route on Notes, that's ok for me. BWCNY 07:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Um, I don't know what are you talking about but, I didn't change that information."
 * Please look more carefully at what you are reverting then.
 * Unless you comment on this change, I didn't realized it was correct or not. So, you shouldn't be placing a blame on me. It's a minor change to edit. BWCNY 07:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I see you list all the exact details of bus routes traveled through the destinations."
 * I do only list the major streets; please look more carefully at some of the routes.
 * See, if you say you list the major streets on each route. Then how come I see a bunch street names in each bus route. Either if you trimmed the minor street that travel on the bus route or you leave it as it. I just wanted to verify of your work. BWCNY 06:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "If you leave as Downtown with out linking it, it refers to a term."
 * Are you aware that you can type Downtown?
 * I rather put Downtown Brooklyn, this way. Look, my point is... you have to be exact on neighborhood names. I believe the proper/correct way is to put Downtown Brooklyn on the list instead putting just one word Downtown. MTA use this. Most Brooklynites use this. Every New York news agency use the proper naming of Downtown Brooklyn. BWCNY 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Then how come I see a bunch street names in each bus route."
 * I only listed what I believed to be the major streets, which is more than the MTA's name for the route but certainly less than every street
 * That's fine, in a way, it should be listed only major streets traveled. I pointed out to you because you don't have to listed all at each route. Only at least 2 to 3 major street names to be listed. That way it will it lessen the load on the page.BWCNY 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't see what's wrong with just updating periodically if the changes are announce. Its just like every other pages in Wikipedia."
 * Actually, Wikipedia is supposed to cover both the past and the present; it should not be biased towards the present. So unless we're going to list every time change that has been done to every route, which I don't think would make a very good article, we shouldn't have the current details. Why do you think it's necessary to list which hours the bus operates? --NE2 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the former wikipedians list the service hours on the bus routes to put some source of information. Most of the times, it will only updated at least twice a year. It does not effect the overall quality. I will restored the original pages that you edit. So, If you rather put some bus service information on individual depot or put in the individual borough bus list page or no changes at all. I will edit back unless you give me good answer. BWCNY 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Brooklyn Daily Eagle uses "Downtown" on its own: [2] --NE2 07:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the history of that newspaper....

Now, look at today's newspaper. The New York Times, The New York Daily News, etc, etc. See the difference. All major newspaper agencies reported the usage of the neighborhood name called Downtown Brooklyn. Google is your best friend to find answers...

BTW, are you from or lived in New York City.BWCNY 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Referring to List of bus routes in each borough pages
I see you list all the exact details of bus routes traveled through the destinations. It is kinda unnecessary to list all the names of the street traveled on the bus route. I rather state the most traveled streets instead of including the least travel street that cover on the bus route. That way it will be easy to read where the bus route usually on the most traveled street.BWCNY 06:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) '':You also commented on my removal of some of the details of routes from the lists in the depots. Wikipedia should not have information that is very subject to change, since it is better stated on the NYCTA's own site. The bus routes don't often change, but their hours and what kind of buses use them are very easy for the NYCTA to change. --NE2 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)''
 * I don't see what's wrong with just updating periodically if the changes are announce. Its just like every other pages in Wikipedia. BWCNY 06:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked on WT:NYC whether it's okay to refer to downtown Brooklyn as "downtown" in the context of Brooklyn. Let's see if anyone responds.
 * Ok BWCNY 07:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have given you a good answer - Wikipedia is not for information that changes quickly, which is better looked up on the MTA's site. Why do you think adding the times operated (and, by extension, any changes to those times) improves the article? --NE2 07:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the history of each depots listing the bus assignments on service hours. It barely changes periodically.

By putting these service times is a source of information of the current bus routing. I don't see whats wrong with it. Bringing back the original bus information would give little more detail in the depot pages. BWCNY 07:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

NYCS link changes
I see that you've been changing around the line links in many NYCS articles. Thanks a lot, you're doing a great job, if I may say so myself. =) Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox road sub-templates
If you could keep an eye out for Infobox road/length, Infobox road/browse no route and Infobox road/browse route for me, that'd be great. I'd change them back to the way they were myself, but I'm currently in danger of violating WP:3RR. --<font color="#CC0018">T <font color="#0000C0">M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

List of bus routes...
I agree there should be a centralized list, like List of bus routes in (insert borough). However, some users may not consider the lists encyclopedic worthy. Apart from that, go ahead. <font face="Tahoma">Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that you started making changes. However, I'd rather the page at "List of bus routes" rather than "List of bus lines". Streetcars traveled along a fixed line, while buses (for the most part) do not. <font face="Tahoma">Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's magic! [[Image:Tongue.png|13px]] <font face="Tahoma">Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Fulton Ferry, Brooklyn
Hi NE2, I found your "merge" tag while working on the Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park article (which I see is incorrectly referenced in DUMBO) and I want to be sure that you are proposing the merging of this article (a stub, really) into DUMBO, Brooklyn ? I'm not sure it's the best thing to do at this time since In any case, I was going to argue this out on the DUMBO page but did not see a Merge tag on that page so I'll wait for you to either: Happy New Year --RCEberwein | Talk 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * DUMBO has been growing at a real-estate developers pace and may not reflect the real neighborhoods in the area. Specifically, DUMBO by def. is not under, south, or west of the Brooklyn Bridge (which would/should be DUBBO right ;-)!)
 * The soon to be developed Brooklyn Bridge Park is likely to lead to some more naming issues in the area.
 * The re-direct you ref in your edit sum "Fulton Landing, Brooklyn redirects to DUMBO" is a result of an editors' justifying its inclusion in an extended, & out of place, discussion/justification of neighbohood name changes--specifically DUMBO. (BTW, Fulton Landing is also the name of a Condominium development there with $1.2 mil apts!)
 * 1) delete/remove your merge request from the FFB page, or,
 * 2) add the tag to DUMBO (FYI: Merging_and_moving_pages

Contributions towards WP:NYCS
Thank you for your contributions and suggestions towards our project. We hope that we can find a lot of other people interested in the NYC subway system, therefore joining our project. If you'd like, please add your name to the list here, putting your user name in the appropriate spelling order, and feel free to make contributions to the project. Again, thanks! -- Imdanumber 1  ( Talk &#124; contribs) 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused highway
I've added the "prod" template to the article Unused highway, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Unused highway. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Brianyoumans 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Ghost ramp discussion. I mostly agree; I in fact suggested in my prod that this definition be at the top of the proposed List of unused highways. I just don't think the 'concept' deserves its own article.  Why don't you simply move the article to List of notable unused highways (or List of unused highways if you must), and start the list? --Brianyoumans 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a Fearless Fosdick prediction: before we can say "roadcruft" three times, this article will turn into a "list of unused highways", as everyone adds their own local botched highway project. And ultimately someone will simply retitle the article.  But... I will leave it be. Brianyoumans 23:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Faster than I thought, mostly because List of unused highways already existed, although I guess under a slightly different name. And, yes, it is just as full of "roadcruft" as I feared it would be. Sigh. Brianyoumans 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting old. Who is this IPuser? He contributed nothing to prior discussions and now he claims that a simple, self-explanatory term is a neologism? I'll seek an admin's opinion if need be.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of unused highways
Is this planned to be a recompilation after review of the listing at ghost ramp? If so, it would be best to move ghost ramp to List of unused highways so that the talk page and revision histories remain intact and then revisions take place. I also rewrote most of Unused highway for clearity and changed removed the OR tag - it's cited witin their respective articles. Perhaps a reference could be made that was used on those respective pages.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Sorry if I was sounding real anal earlier about ghost ramp. I sort of get testy at times and I apologise.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't go around deleting citations and then claiming it's all a neologism. "Stub ramp" is used in official state highway department documents, and there is a (web) ref for a definition for Ghost Ramp. There are refs for both in the section you just deleted, and I just restored.

Whether "Ghost Ramp" is a neologism or not, you're going way too far, and deleting properly referenced material, and that's not ok. Georgewilliamherbert 09:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have twice now reverted out the section describing "stub ramp" and the citation to the Washington State Department of Transportation newsletter. That official agency and publication clearly and unequivocally meets Wikipedia standards for reliable sources.  Removing a reliable source and its information is vandalism.  The discussion over "Ghost ramp" being reliably sourced or not is a separate issue.  Please do not further vandalize the article.  Georgewilliamherbert 20:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This sequence of events has been ludicrous. You push for deleting the article, then split it and rename it, and now are complaining that putting references in is going in the wrong article?  I'm going to propose merging them back together.  Georgewilliamherbert 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention having an improper close of an AfD (the closing admin shold be an admin who had not taken a position on the AfD. Since I see no mention of you in the list of admins, I must conclude that you are not. In addition, you have twice asserted that the article should be deleted before striking a "plea bargain" to move it without consensus). 147.70.236.93 21:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please put the merge tags back. If you disagree you're supposed to discuss it in the talk page, not delete the tags. Just deleting them is improper procedure. See also for an alternate propsal. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Template auto-protection
Hi, I censored your comment at the Village Pump, in the interest of WP:BEANS. Hope you don't mind (feel free to revert if you do). -- Renesis (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ozark Festival talk page
Yeah, you're probably right - it's deleted. NawlinWiki 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring in New York City Transit buses
Looking at your changes to this page you are in danger of violating the 3RR. Please stop, take a step back and discuss changes on the talk page of the above article. Rob110178 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Subdivision (response)
While it is true that whatever is left of the rail between Beauharnois and Adirondack belongs to CSX. The tracks were abandoned almost 10 years ago and has been ripped up in many locations. The connection to CP was destroyed about 2 years ago. The Right of way still exits,, but clearly, there are no longer any tracks. With the reconstruction of Highway 132 about 4 years ago, the level crossing was removed. Alex@MTRL 05:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

List of streetcar lines in Brooklyn
It looks like you've gotten List of streetcar lines in Brooklyn into shape, so would you mind blanking Talk:List of streetcar lines in Brooklyn? That is, unless you still need it for something. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That sort of thing shouldn't be on the talk page though. If you aren't going to add all the information to the article itself, at least move it to a subpage of your own user page. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are primarily for discussion about the article, rather than just collections of information (whether it relates to the article or not). I'd suggest perhaps creating a user subpage and starting a discussion saying something like, "More information relating to this article can be found at ." Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 04:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then have a message on the page saying "feel free to edit". By the way, why not integrate all the information into the article? Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh. Looking at m:Help:Talk page at Talk page guidelines, it looks like general Wikipedia policy is that talk pages are for discussions. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 05:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is that excerpt from? Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 05:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Touché =) I've placed all the information in Talk:List of streetcar lines in Brooklyn under a "Share material" heading, just for clarity. How's that? Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

M-2 (Michigan highway)
Do you know where the M-2 page went? There was an article there with content explaining the curioius lack of that number having been used, and the start of the explanation of where it has been planned to be used. Imzadi1979 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Transition of Prospect Park Plaza to Grand Army Plaza
Just wanted to thank you for the NYT clip on the naming of Grand Army Plaza in 1926. Thanks! Gosgood 13:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:New York City Subway transfer-points
You nominated my category for deletion. With all due respect I don't think a CFD is necessary yet. I created it so people at the project will be more understandable of my idea. I will speedy delete it if it doesn't make the cut; otherwise, the category should be removed from cfd. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk &#124; contribs) 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Brooklyn Trolleys
Hi NE2, You've certainly picked a BIG subject--Brooklyn trolley history makes the subway/el history relatively a piece of cake, because of the multiple companies, running rights, bankruptcies, etc., etc. I see you already list Joseph Korman's site, which is the only web source I know of that has the original line numbers. The numbers of certain lines (like 8-Church and 13-Church) were renumbered so as not to conflict with bus route numbers after the BofT took over.

I like your (I assume it's yours) List of streetcar lines in Brooklyn very much. How come you have the less detailed and accurate info on the article page but a better chart on the talk page? I'm afraid I can't add any detail on the numbering other than what you've already located. Cheers, Cecropia 05:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edits
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks!


 * Start marking your minor edits (such as adding templates) as minor. Thank you. alphachimp  05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

BF&CI RR
Good sleuthing! And I appreciate that you have a taste for primary sources, which seems to be a rare quality these days. However, I would caution you that primary sources (especially maps) are not unimpeachable. Streets may be shown which didn't exist at the time of the map, proposed railroads may be shown as though they were built, anachronisms abound of abandoned streets/railroads, even geographic features that no longer exist. One of the maps you link to (the 1897 Rand McNally) shows the Park Avenue Elevated--it was already dismantled. It shows many streets in Flatbush that didn't yet exist, that never existed, that didn't go as far as the map shows, or that were not laid out on the alignment shown. This was not uncommon. Survey maps, when available, are much better.

Also be cautious of interpretations. You said "figured out what that line was - it was a never-completed Brooklyn, Flatbush and Coney Island Railroad (later reincorporated and built as the Brighton Beach Line)." You're one and two ;-) on that one. It was a plot of the BF&CI RailROAD, which was intended as a connection from the BCRR Flatbush Ave. horsecar to Coney, but it was an entirely different company from the BF&CI RailWAY, which became the Brighton Line. But don't feel bad; this is a VERY common error which is repeated in published work, including (IIRC) Brian Cudahy. Anyway, don't think I'm discouraging. You're doing excellent work. Cheers, Cecropia 07:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though wrong, it wasn't the worst guess that the RailROAD and the RailWAY were related--changing a line name between WAY and ROAD was a fairly common way to avoid renaming a road entirely after bankruptcy and reorganization. -- Cecropia 08:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your CFD
One of the central tenets of Wikipdia is: assume good faith. In other words, even when we disagree with someone, we should assume that they truly have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.

Now I am beginning to wonder if the good-faith rule applies to you. I created a category regarding station complexes, and because two people who made posts were not understanding of my opinion, I decided to create the category to mbe able to prove my statement.

Now you went ahead and listed it for CFD. This is not good-faith behavior and may be implied as vandalism. This also includes using the CFD process incorrecty. We do not go around listing artices, stubs, templates, etc for deletion. You could have posted a comment instead of listing the category for deletion. I wolud have speedied it immediately if no one agreed, which everyone is anyway at the entry. I have nothing else to say and assume that this is a bad-faith nomination.

I do indeed repect your contributons and concerns towards New York City Transit. I would suggest you play as part of the team, instead of making unilateral edits not supported by the community. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk &#124; contribs) 13:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bus Station Article
Please dont add 'fact' at the end of articles. JFBurton 20:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

nycsubway.org
I just thought I'd let you know that, a while ago, the people at nycsubway.org gave their permission for us to liberally re-use their text; thus, I'm not sure that the text you removed from IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line qualifies as a copyvio. In reality, however, it's a moot point; I don't think that there is much text in this project that was copied directly from that site. It would be great if you let me know when you find such excerpts, so that I can perhaps rewrite the removed section in a copyvio-free manner. Thanks, Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, this happened before I joined WP:NYCS; I'm taking the word of previous editors. I think that they wanted to get the permission earlier so they could use nycsubway.com's text to get a start, back when the project was young; in this day and age, there's no reason (or excuse, frankly) to do straight copy-and-pastes. But again, it's a moot point; I really don't think that there are many instances like the one you just removed, which happened to be long, confusing, and horribly out of context. If there are, it would be great if you could let me know about them; I'd be happy to do some rewriting. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Parkway
I checked your reference, which seems to say that the subway from the Joralemon St tube to Nevins St is part of the Eastern Parkway Line. But how do we know what that means, exactly? Does it include the tube, or does it mean from the end of the tube? Is Borough Hall considered part of the tube? Track chaining suggests that Eastern Parkway starts at Borough Hall (M chaining from Brooklyn Bridge to Borough Hall, E chaining from Borough Hall to New Lots). Maybe we should ask the MTA for clarification. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like they tend to refer to the river tunnels separately from the lines. If this is their habit, then Joralemon would be its own entity, and "Joralemon tube to Nevins St" would be exclusive of the tube proper—whatever that means. Anyway, I've e-mailed the MTA, which means I should get an answer in about a year or so. :) By the way, do you use IRC at all? Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 16:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I don't want us to consider the tunnels as separate from lines; I'm saying that the MTA seems to. If you check out some of those budget documents, they have references to CLK (Clark St Tunnel) and CRAN (Cranberry St Tunnel). I think we have to also use some common sense when talking about the lines. For instance, I've always considered Eastern Parkway as beginning at the merge with B'way–7 Av from Clark St and the Lex from Joralemon. The same with the upper Lex: beginning at the merge of Jerome Av and Pelham. (P.S., it looks like you and Imdanumber1 are starting up something on my talk page. Let's move it to the project talk to get others involved.) Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting old
This is getting old.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't. B.Wind slapped up the tag, I just initiated the discussion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * <S>I'll remove my comment pending his statement.</S> What did you mean by, "Did you add it to the appropriate AFD day?"?  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now sourced from a bajillion different sources -- Unused highway. Is there a way to condense the references or put the code somewhere else? The page looks VERY jargled.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

2 and 5 on opposite Manhattan trunklines
There is no need of having a source if you have seen trains there before. Then again, not everyone lives in New York City. You can always bring it up on the project page. -- Imdanumber1 (talk &#124; contribs) 13:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:TrainsWikiProject
Sure, we can do that. I'll look into it further a bit later today. Slambo <small style="color:black;">(Speak) 14:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, we might as well add Category:Unreferenced New York City public transportation articles as well for the <tt>unref=yes</tt> parameter. Slambo <small style="color:black;">(Speak) 14:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. The three categories are getting populated correctly now. Slambo <small style="color:black;">(Speak)  12:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doh! Fixed now. Slambo <small style="color:black;">(Speak)  14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: A vs. GA quality... I was going to collect my thoughts and a short history of the grading to reply to your question, but today I saw the comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council that nicely summed up what I wanted to say. Slambo <small style="color:black;">(Speak) 12:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of express and multi-borough bus routes in New York City

 * First I think it SHOULD be rename to "List of NYCTA/MTA Bus express bus routes in New York City''' not to be confused with different express bus routes services in New York City.
 * Second, if you put QBx1 in the list of express and multi-borough list, why not Bx routes goes to Manhattan or B39 an B51 going over to Manhattan or s53, s79 and s93 going over to Brooklyn, etc. You not making sense. I suggest to you change the title of the article as mention in my first point and stick with the express routes.BWCNY 03:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * UM...HELLO THERE, read the above comment.... Why don't you list all the local routes that goes from one borough to another borough as well and it will all be mixed up in that page. I suggest to remove the QBx1 listing on the current page and place it both on Bronx and Queens, because this route has three different routes. Flushing to Pelham Bay pk station, Flushing to Co-Op City, Pelham Bay Pk to Co-Op City. And also renamed that title of the page, regardless if the the QBx1 is in the page. The title is redundant. I see someone did a smart thing to change the title and getting you mad. BWCNY 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I rather don't list all the routes going from one borough to another borough, making the page MORE confusing as it is. AND also again, change the title of the page, It should only be focus on EXPRESS route. NOT that 1 route that goes from borough to borough making local stops as you stated in the page.

BTW, please stop being the one person who wants to protect your own work. I see that right now. Wikipedia is a share edit online encyclopedia, if you can't share someone who wants to correct the article you created then why bother coming here where you doing your own work and not letting someone making corrections. There's some editors who question you right now. So you better stop doing this practice.

READ, before you start getting a BUNCH of mistakes
BWCNY 05:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are combing two (2) DIFFERENT things... QBx1 (Although uses multi-borough symbol), it should not be placed in the page where it is all express routes and on the link to the template where it says (EXPRESS). (So, you have to Fix that.) QBx1 is a local route and should not be belong there.  The title "multi-borough bus routes reflect on a route going from one borough to another. Again, DO you wanna list all routes that applies to this list and make the readers MORE confusing. Renamed the title of the page and remove the QBx1 route and put it in on the Bronx and Queens list. Or else I do it myself.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWCNY (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * If you are confused on which template that I wrote about, well here it is. When you click on "Express" and scroll down to QBX1.... Does it belongs it there? The answer is NO. So what are you gonna do about it?

BWCNY 05:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again why need to change to make it MORE complex, I suggest to you again follow my points:
 * Remove QBX1 route on that page and place it on the Queens and the Bronx listing
 * Renamed the the title to reflect the MTA Bus and NYCT and Private company that operates on the routes.

How HARD is that. BWCNY 05:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, next time check the page and the template twice before making ridiculous amounts of edit that destroy the history of the page.


 * ARE YOU THAT CONFUSED? The article is really complex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWCNY (talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * You know why I'm shouting? Because you haven't figure it out the correct way to placed the information on the right page. So calm down on your edit/writing because you won't be protecting the page 24/7. You basically making it more complex. BWCNY 05:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Use Template:Edit summary personal; . Cheers   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

QBx1 is a LOCAL ROUTE

 * It's not an express route!!! So stop reverting or edited in to the pages. If it is an express route it should go over the bridge to I-95 and stop at Co-Op City, But that is not the official routing. QBx1 is a local route that makes local stops in Queens and in the Bronx. Go look at the MTA Bus schedule to see it for yourself and prove me wrong.

'''Before you corrected yourself all over again and again and again, YOU SHOULD USE THE SHOW PREVIEW BUTTON, located on the bottom of edit summary. TO CHECK THE PAGE CORRECTLY or else you be hitting a edit warning 3RR ''' BWCNY 03:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Express route prefixes
A quick lesson to clarify... X = NYCTA uses X as express on NYCTA routings Before MTA took over the private franchised bus company...NYCDOT classify the express routings as Borough prefix going in and out to Manhattan, not to be confused with NYCTA X prefix system.
 * BM = Brooklyn and Manhattan express
 * 'BxM = Bronx and Manhattan express
 * QM = Queens and Manhattan express
 * BQM= Brooklyn-Queens and Manhattan express

The QBx prefix is Queens and Bronx, although it does not goes to Manhattan, but it crosses two boroughs. This route was made by NYCDOT as a local service  not express service to Co-OP City and Flushing.

If you not that clear, reply back... BWCNY 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

List of NYCTA, MaBSTOA, and MTA Bus express bus routes in New York City

 * Please stop redirecting, The new tile fits in well. I don't know why you are making a big deal. DO YOU WANNA list non public transportation companies in that--> "List of express and multi-borough bus routes in New York City". I would change the title to refect on NYCT and MTA Bus routes.Sta2GUYZ 04:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Subway photos
Thanks for the encouragement and spotting that error. I hope to get more photos done this winter. Take it easy! Dave --DavidShankBone 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BWCNY
I strongly recommend that you take a step back in your interactions with BWCNY. You are violating the 3RR and are not helping the situation. Please do not feed the fire. Rob110178 06:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bronx
I not arguing as of right now. You should realized the official name of the borough is The Bronx, with the capital T.

After this comment, do not reply me back at this moment after you create ____ incident. BWCNY 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

RE-READ again, look at the above post and DO NOT Reply to me back at this moment

Mediation with BWCNY
Good Morning --

After sitting back and breathing a bit. I was wondering if you would be willing to mediate your differences with BWCNY. I believe that you both have a great deal to offer the NYC transit community, but that is currently being diminished by your current actions. If you need some assistance please let me know! Rob110178 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested page move
NE2 -- I am going to wait until the edit dust settles before we look into a page move. Once it clears than we will get it moved... Rob110178 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)
Why do you feel that "Exit 60" is not a proper noun? It seems to me that it's a specific location, and would be capitalized the same way any road – or even the East Los Angeles Interchange – would be. The fact that it's numbered instead of actually named the way that example is shouldn't make a difference; just like Interstate 90 and the Indiana Toll Road are both capitalized. -- NORTH talk 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but a search for Exit 5 (which gives many more results for whatever reason) yields 29 / 35 results capitalized, an overwhelming majority. I understand why that "tendancy to avoid" would be a good idea in some situations, but IMHO it's pretty clear here that it should be capitalized. -- NORTH talk 00:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, thank you very much for beating me to the GA review. Very well stated case. -- NORTH talk 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

AWB Edit
Fixed. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 1. 2 . Editor Review 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Bus Routes in the Bronx
The value of an article on bus routes in the Bronx is that it covers bus routes in the Bronx, not those routes designated by whatever the MTA calls itself these days as "Bronx routes."

The article should treat all the (local) routes identically, in the same table, etc, no matter what the letters at the beginning are. In addition, it may be useful to point out separately (such as the list at the bottom) which routes cross into other boroughs.

For that matter, the Westchester local routes really belong in the table as well. Jd2718 22:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There can be difficulty when transit experts or buffs edit anything to do with transit. A non-buff coming to the page would expect to get a complete list of bus routes in the Bronx. That would be everything from the Bx1 through the QBx1 through the W20. That is what they should get. And yes, if this problem extends across other articles about transit in the region, they should be corrected. There needn't be any routes listed separately at the bottom. However, if there are, that list should be of all the routes out of the Bronx.
 * Who is the article written for? Is the information presented in the way that will be most useful for those users? Is important information omitted? Those sorts of questions can help focus us so that we end up writing useful, not just fact-filled, articles. Jd2718 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you be okay with just tossing the others (Q44, QBx, all the W's) into the table? Jd2718 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The routes are in more than one borough. Why should a little duplication be a problem? If it's a table of routes in the Bronx, it should be a table of routes in the Bronx, not a table of routes the TA designates as Bronx routes. The good of the user has to be considered. Jd2718 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bus companies
That source:  is untrue and outdated, prove me wrong. BWCNY 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Visit this website:, a detail rosterBWCNY 07:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, every thing is made up ok, do me a favor. If you think this source is not that reliable, do not reply to me back. I given you that source that was prior the MTA Bus takeover. You seem little known about this so, I suggest to you go through the history process of MTA Bus takeover until you found that the one you post the Private companies link profile were just an estimate back in 2002 and were completely change many times. So you should not put how many buses that city owns to operate by PBL. BWCNY 07:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuses me, but why don't you provide the reference since you know how MTA Bus takeover, there are articles and sites with sources. I don't want barge in with your reverts...

BTW, you are are really WRONG....

Q35 and Q37 operated by Green Lines since the 50-60's... Go back and double check your info and i am not trusting that AOL site.

scaps in exit lists
I started a discussion at WT:IH/ELG based on what you said at the I-295 peer review. After careful thought, I think I agree with you here. Feel free to add to what I said. -- NORTH talk 09:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)