User talk:Staglit/Archive 2

List of Metro Systems project
Hi! Just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I haven't forgotten about this! Based on the lack of comment at the List of metro systems Talk page, I've got to assume that what we've come up with is acceptable to the other editors there. In other words, I think we're almost ready to replace the current table with your Sandbox version!

There's just a few more things I'd like to do before that happens: 1) finish referencing the original (Bangkok is the last major city that I've got to look at, and then my referencing project will be done!); 2) move any new referencing over to your version; 3) split the references into "system" and "ridership" sections (as was discussed over on the Talk page; 4) adjust the column width's for wider-screen monitors. Once all that is done, I think we're ready to replace the current table with the new one. I'm hoping this can happen in the next two weeks...

Let me know what you think! :) --IJBall (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think is going great, I have no objections to your requests. I'm afraid I won't be much help as I haven't a clue how to separate references, But I will do as much as I can. Staglit (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Haifa Carmelit
On what grounds do you claim that the Haifa Carmelit is not a Metro? StevenJ81 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the grounds that it is a funicular and not a metro. --IJBall (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Funicular refers in part to its technology, not only its function. Carmelit meets all independent criteria as a metro:
 * Grade-separated right-of-way without public access between stations
 * Operates entirely within the city. Has six stations–is not simply a point-to-point funicular. Has strong connections to rest of Haifa's urban transit system.
 * Service frequencies and operating hours comparable to metro systems
 * Passenger car capacity comparable to metro systems
 * I am not sure why you have excluded funiculars by definition from this list. If it walks like a metro and quacks like a metro, it's a metro. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * StevenJ81: Carmelit is a funicular and belongs in List of funicular railways. Yes, it may serve the same purpose as a metro, but if we were to add systems with the same purpose as a metro, we would have a mile long list. Furthermore, dozens of funiculars may meet these requirements, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I agree, the Carmelit is in the gray area, and you can take this to List of Metro Systems for further discussion, but where I stand at the moment is that Carmelit is a funicular, not a metro.Staglit (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an honest answer. When I have some time I'll take it over there. Thanks for your thoughtful help. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ecological significance of koppens climatic classification
You will see that we differ on the best way of handling this. Initially I declined your CSD for reasons given in the article history. Further investigation showed that this could and should be merged. I hope to encourage you to look a little deeper when flagging some articles for speedy deletion. Deletion is not always the best option. Sometime,s yes, just not always. Fiddle  Faddle  16:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

London Paddington station
Hi. Why did you at London Paddington station? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, having both of these services included is better than having only one, as it makes things clearer. After all, they are different rail lines; I don't really understand why we need to delete one. Staglit (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They aren't different rail lines; they're the same as far as Reading, and then it gets complicated. I deleted one that was added today, with (it had then been amended with ). Both of those users are in the habit of messing around with railway station routeboxes, making unnecessary changes every few days, sometimes reverting themselves a day or two later. Sometimes they revert each other, but I strongly suspect them to be the same person. Until last week, they had confined their attention to the line between Liverpool Street and Norwich, but now they seem to have turned elsewhere. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I'm sorry; I wasn't aware was so similar the routes were that similar, but I'd still advocate for something more than two terminus's... But I'm not going to continue any further. Have a great day!Staglit (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

NYC subway
Hi there,

I don't know the NYC subway system that well, so I can't easily tell whether that information is worth including on that or some other article. If you have knowledge of it, then I'll trust your judgement; otherwise you should ask a more frequent editor to the article whether the content should be moved or deleted.

I just saw removal of sourced content without any edit summary (justification), and that flags vandalism for me. Next time I'd advise you leave an edit summary.

Cheers.-- ɱ   (talk)   01:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Monica Alcorano
This is a bio page and so I've cited all the information with links to Monica and OD Hunte's websites. I also cited the final bit with a link to the bucks herald (a news publication). I don't understand how I can get this information from anywhere else? MatthewMonck (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Biased
Hi, thanks for your recent edit. Could you tell me what you think was biased about what I had written. Thanks.Englandcricketteam (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Shakira
Haha! I know, it was very confusing for me too. I realised later that I had restored your revision when I had meant to restore my own, although I swear I clicked on the right link. I apoligise for the problem too, I should have left a bettter, more accurate edit summary. Thank you for your time! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

IP
The problem is, we need to go and try to treat the IP the same as a registered user in these cases, try to initiate dialog. The problem was that he was improperly slammed with the "vandal" tag and quick banned, before anything could even be discussed. If this was a registered user, raising a stink, there would be a mob forming at ANI. I'm not under the illusion that IP and reg'ed users are exactly the same (and I created WP:IP addresses are not people) but we need to treat them the same when we can, and in this case, we can. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  21:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, you were mistaken, but you didn't get dickish about it, and I don't think your report led to the blocking anyway. We all make mistakes.  I certainly do, regularly.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestine
Hi, I'm very new to this editing and still learning it. I removed the bizarre text of alledged muslim persecution of Palestinian Christians because it is unfounded and the only source to that being linked is from an israeli think tank with credibility issues. Wikipedia should be free of political iformation and merely informative. Claiming "other commentators" claiming persecution are infact from the above mentioned think tank. Most christians from bethlehem leave due to the hardship of the occupation, not any alledged travel restriction or persecution. I would know, I'm one of them now living in Sweden. Reading this dumbfounds us and is utterly inaccurate and politically drivem. Thus it should not be there.

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clermont-Ferrand Tramway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SMTC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Death of Sharmila Banu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Sharmila Banu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Death of Sharmila Banu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the history of the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Sharmila_Banu&action=history
 * On April 21, 2014‎ Staglit nominated page for deletion using Page Curation (subst:prod) with the reason "Written like a news article."

Since you tagged the article for proposed deletion, I thought that you might want to participate in the AfD. I think the article is notable, for reasons I have explained on the AfD page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi! Thanks for the reminders! I truly apprciate it. I'm actually an old wikipedian. I used to be known as monzonda, but for security purposes I'm starting all over again and working on a new user page that will reflect my old contributions. Thanks so much! I really appeciate it, because I wanna fresh up on the rules and regulations of this fine organization. Here's my old user page, just in case your interested. monzonda Cheers! c",) Callcenterguy1975 (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Clermont-Ferrand tramway
When it comes to categorization, our rule is that you should always look for the most specific available categories, rather than all of the possible ones. In particular, what you want to avoid is an article being in a category and other subcategories of that first category at the same time — since is a subcategory of  which is a subcategory of  which is a subcategory of, an article doesn't need to be in all four of those categories at the same time — it just goes in the most specific one. (And in fact, some cities have an even more specific "Transport in city" subcategory as well — Clermont-Ferrand doesn't yet, but if it did the article would get filtered down even further to that, and come out of and  too.)

And for the same reason, since it's in, it doesn't need to be directly in or , since that category is in both of those. Generally the rule is that you add the most specific relevant categories that aren't simply duplicating each other.

I know you're still fairly new here, so if you want a bit more information on how categories are actually applied to articles you can see WP:SUBCAT for more detail. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On Achille Salata
Sir, how dare you accuse me of plagiarizing Cyclopaedia! Alors, tis the other way around. They even admit to their ghastly crime. My entry was extracted from Angelo De Gubernatis' dictionary of contemporary artists. My effort even involved my pericoloso effort at translation of many of the titles of the works. In past centuries, your accusation would have led to a duel with saber, pikes, or ivory-handled rivoltella. Think twice before you attempt again to besmirch the honor of your betters. Rococo1700 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for the snarkiness, but perhaps something will come of it. I agree with the Wikipedia notion of presuming good faith, but that did not comport with your claim of plagiarism. I think that is a claim you should use sparingly and not after some effort at confirmation. It is a serious accusation. As to what may come of this, is maybe wikipedia will make it a policy that nominations for deletions will take significant more effort than they do now. I have had to deal with many a flimsy nomination, applied with little forethought. The snarkiness may awaken you to this need; if so, something good came of it.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Param Vir Chakra
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Param Vir Chakra. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)