User talk:HenryS

American terrorism

Your edit to American terrorism, "Many people use the the term...the term is legitimate. On other hand some people use the term...That is not legitimate" is provided without citation. It may well be an accurate description, but we can't just add our own opinions and commentary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still sounds to me like your own opinion, but if you restore it, I won't delete it until someone else does. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything what a free man says is his own opinion. I believe that the term "American terrorism" is either a fact of life about american terrorists, or just antiamerican propaganda. Anyway, thank you. I will find some quotes and place them, if they are the "holy cows".

I see that everything could be placed and be keeped in wikipedia with care. You may publish stories about americans born to kill innocent gunmen, just have a string started with http://... but you are prohibited from publishing common sense without http...

Your opinion is nothing, but Dr. Goebbels' opinion rules. --HenryS 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

I notice that you added the following to the Terrorism article:

However a state and its government has been established to defend the nation and enforce the law of the land by using violence, if needed. Therefore, every single state and government could be labeled with State terrorist label. So this definition is meaningless.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so its editors' opinions do not belong here. Please review our point of view and original research policies, so that you know what type of material can and cannot be included. Dylan 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Terrorism#State_Terrorism

--HenryS 01:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding -- I wrote response to your comments at Talk:Terrorism#State_Terrorism. Dylan 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Park

I felt that the comparison to Monaco was somewhat obscure and did not have a place in the very first paragraph of the article; now that I think about it, the comparison to the Grand Canyon is also somewhat trivial. I'll create a "Trivia" section to contain such information. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Station names

The only "problem" here seems to be you taking personal offense to something that is not personal at all. Ask anyone in WikiProject New York City Subway: I don't cause problems. This is almost a rule. I suggest you take note of the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit page: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Also see WP:CIVIL. I have made edits that others feel differently about; these do not insult me or attempt to reprimand me, but bring the subject up in a calm discussion, which I have no objection to taking part in. There was no need to call me arrogant or anything else.

Now, to business.

Perhaps some people use Wikipedia for practical purposes. I doubt that this constitutes the majority of users, however. Regardless of what you might think, anyone who wants "practical" information on the subway is not going to come to Wikipedia first, they will go to the MTA website. Those who view subway articles on Wikipedia are the ones who are doing research or following their curiosity.

If someone sees 57th Street in the table, they are seeing the station's real name. The station's name is 57th Street. It is not 57th Street–Sixth Avenue, or anything else. The practice of referring to the two 57th Street stations as "57th-7th" and "57th-6th" came about because both stations at one point were both terminal stations. After the opening of the IND Chrystie Street Connection, trains from Brooklyn could terminate at either station, so they had to be distinguished from each other. It would be ambiguous to say something like "this is a Q to 57th Street"—which? However, each station is still just 57th Street. There is no need to specify "Sixth Avenue" because the station listing is on the page about the IND Sixth Avenue Line; there is only one 57th Street on the Sixth Avenue Line. Likewise for the station on the BMT Broadway Line. Today, any train terminating at 57th Street must be going to the Broadway Line station. Following your logic through a broader conclusion, we would have to include cross streets on all line listings, which would be a tremendous waste of energy.

The only context in which specifying 6th or 7th is in an article about the history of certain BMT or IND services that ran when both stations were terminals. In this case, it is necessary to differentiate.

--Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Larry V's observations. I have also found that he is extremely reasonable about changing his mind, when you make a forceful (but civil) argument for doing things differently. Marc Shepherd 18:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping discussions and back to facts.

Anybody could take a free Subway Map in any NYC subway booth. If one is not a New Yorker, (s)he may ask MTA to send it, I believe. The map is published by Metropolitain Transportation Authority (MTA - the subway operator) and signed by Peter S. Kalikow, Chairman. I suggest, he is the highest authority for the case.

You can see on the map, that :

There are two stations and two different names: 57th Street-7th Av and 57th Street. --HenryS 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Map is not the end-all/be-all for station names. The Map may say 57th Street/7th Avenue. Elsewhere, I have seen the station as Midtown–57th Street/7th Avenue. The station itself maintains signage saying simply "57th Street". I am inclined to stick with the station signage, because the fact that it has not been changed indicates that the MTA is not particularly serious about renaming it to 57th/7th, or anything else for that matter. As for Mr. Kalikow… being the chairman of the MTA doesn't make him an authority on anything. Just because he signs the Map doesn't mean that he designed it or decided on the names. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MTA is highly inconsistent in the way it refers to its stations; it's a big leap to say that "57 St-7 Av" is the official name. As for sources: The line maps in the four published BMT Broadway Line schedules (N (122 KB), Q (161 KB), R (190 KB), W (100 KB), all PDF) refer to "57th Street", with "Seventh Avenue" given as a cross-street only. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I don't see the reference on the R schedule. I don't see any mention of 57th Street on page 3 at all. The strip map on page 2 says "57th Street" with "7 Av" as the cross-street.

(b) This is not an edit war. I am avoiding an edit war by attempting to have a discussion with you. What you are doing is providing an example how to be an uncivil editor.

(c) My point is that there is no official name. And how informative do you want to be? You could theoretically add cross-streets to every single station listing, but what good would that do?

--Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that your assertions that "57th Street" is incorrect are themselves incorrect. You are completely wrong that "57th Street" is undocumented, it appear in such places as the MTA website (for example, the N train line information page) and the schedules (in the strip map, which you ignored). It is just as documented at "57th/7th". And while there was no official/non-official discussion, per se, you asserted that "57th/7th" was the official name, which it is not. It is one of several names that the MTA uses for the station. And "57th Street" is "ambiguous and so confusing"? Let's not get overdramatic here: There are only two 57th Street stations in the subway system. "57th Street" is just as correct as "57th/7th"; the question is which is better. The argument did begin over that, but then regressed to which is right and which is wrong, while both names are in fact correct, acceptable, and widely used. However, I will concede here because I respect the opinion of Cecropia, who managed to make nearly the same points as you did without making it a personal attack on me. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems started not from overdrama, but from useless edit war. I am happy that the common sense wins, does not matter by what cause. Thank you --HenryS 14:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After something of a sort Wiki-break (from extraneous circumstances), I would actually like to apologize for getting perhaps a little too emotionally involved in our recent exchange. In general, I tend to react strongly to things at first, but usually calm down quite a bit given enough time. No hard feelings? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accepted :-)--HenryS 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]