User talk:LRG5784/Archive 1

Welcome

I just noticed you'd never been welcomed, so I'm giving you the welcome message now. If nothing else, you may find the links useful.

Welcome!

Hello, LRG5784, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --ais523 16:29, 4 August 2006 (U T C)

Please Sign Your Comments

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! alphaChimp ^laudare 22:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

If you are serious about nominating yourself for administrator status, you have to follow through on the directions given at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#To nominate yourself. Your RfA is not showing up on the main WP:RFA page, and until it does no one will have a chance to vote on it. Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the info. --imdanumber1 18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly recommend you withdraw your nomination. It's already failing, and with just 229 edits to your credit it is highly unlikely to pass. You need considerably more experience. I don't mean to chastize you, but an RfA is really premature right now. All the best, --Durin 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second Durin's comment. I am very happy to see an editor who wants to get more involved and I encourage you to do so... but keep in mind, we have about 110 thousand editors registered, and 4,200 of them edited at least 100 times in June (see stats.wikimedia.org ). We only have 950ish admins right now.

Typical new admins have over 2,000 edits and more than a year's participation. I hope that a year from now, you've made a bunch of positive edits and are well liked in the community, and can renominate yourself (or someone else can nominate you). But right now, you're underqualified.

Keep up the energy level, though. The more you contribute, the better off the project is. Thanks for being interested! Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing others comments here and in the RfA, keep up the good work, but an RfA is probably not appropriate at this time. I've closed it early, please take on some of the advice people have given you here and there and keep working to improve the project. There are a huge number of things to help out with that don't require admin rights. - Taxman ^Talk 21:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies?

Hi there, Imdanumber1. I just noticed your RfA and thought I'd drop by with a plate of cookies. (Cyber, of course, but I can always bake some and mail them if you wish. :P Just don't try to eat the screen. It is painful.) Anyway, I'm so sorry that it's not doing well, and like the others here, I'd like to suggest that you withdraw. Potentially hurtful comments are sometimes made during RfAs, and I don't want you to have to experience any of them, especially as you're such a promising editor and, unfortunately, you only have about 300 edits. In four to six months, if you keep up your current rate of editing and the quality of your edits, I bet you'll have a successful RfA. If there's anything I can do, please drop me a line. Have a nice day! :) Srose (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I'm just stopping by to suggest that you vote in Larry V's RfA. It's typical for the nominator to cast a support vote fairly early in the proceeding, something like "Support as nominator" or something like that. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Comments

My bot really isn't able to respond to your comments, and you can revert even though you're not an admin. Check out Help:Reverting. alphaChimp ^laudare 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

34th Street-Herald Square

Thanks for taking up my suggestion to begin with the "easy, non-controversial" merges first. I strongly believe that, by doing this, we will build consensus and momentum for some of the "harder" ones later on. Let me just make a few suggestions.

When merging, make sure that everything relevant in the original articles is carried over into the merged article. For instance, in the 34th Street-Herald Square merge, the external links and categories were "lost."

It is also useful to look for material in the body of the original articles that really belongs in the introduction to the merged article. For instance, any comment about nearby points-of-interest belongs at the top, because it applies to the whole station complex, not just a set of platforms.

However, it's a great start, and I fully believe this is the way to go for many of the station complexes. Marc Shepherd 13:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marc, no problem, I will keep working on these. But feel free to check my sandbox subpage to see if the Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street Complex page I made will suffice by visiting the User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox page. Thanks. --imdanumber1 15:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Atlantic-Pacific draft is pretty good, aside from some typographical errors. Don't forget to restore the bus connections and external links from the original articles. Marc Shepherd 12:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

Sorry for being busy in real-life lately, but I'm just stopping by to thank you for nominating me on my recent RfA. I'll definitely try to make the best of the chance I've been given! Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYCS station complexes

Great job on the station complex mergers. I've just posted a long reply on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway proposing a disposition of all the other reasonable merger candidates. I am hopeful that people will see that the mergers just completed were successful, and that this will lead to agreement on many of the others. There are a few where I remain opposed (for now), because I cannot think of a reasonable non-confusing name. However, if the current proposal is adopted, it will lead to another thirteen more merges. Let's see if we can get those done, and then we'll (possibly) move on to the others. Marc Shepherd 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're making some real progress. User Pacific Coast Highway agreed with most of the proposed merges. You wrote:

Secondly, I have an idea on how we can get reasonable names on station complexes. For example, the order of the station naming should be IRT station names first, BMT station names second, and IND station names last. One reasonable matter is 74th Street-Broadway (IRT Flushing Line) and Jackson heights-Roosevelt Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) into 74th Street-Broadway-Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue (New York City Subway).

Station complex names ought to be reasonably guessable, and not too large a mouthful. Nobody would guess "74th Street-Broadway-Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue." The station is not well known by that name, and it's an extremely lengthy title. If anything, I would go with the name derived from what Station Reporter uses, 74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue (New York City Subway). But as you saw from Pacific Coast Highway's response, even "reasonably obvious" ones like "Lexington-51st" and "42nd Street-Bryant Park" may attract some opposition.

We are likely to be reasonably successful with this if we proceed incrementally, rather than trying to get agreement on everything at once. Marc Shepherd 22:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that we have redirects. We are putting redirects on the articles prior to the station complex move. If a person searches 74th Street-Broadway (IRT Flushing Line), it will redirect to the new title. I STRONGLY believe that we should use all of the station's naming instead of part of it. We shouldn't omit out part of the station's original naming. --imdanumber1 00:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a look at the standard at WP:NAME:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. Marc Shepherd 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...good point. --imdanumber1 10:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more point to remember — when merging station articles, be sure to put the merged article into all the categories the constituent articles were in, plus Category:New York City Subway stations. All "complex" stations go into the latter category, whereas one-line station articles only go in the category for the line they're in. Marc Shepherd 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the two latest merges you did — 42nd Street-Bryant Park and 51st Street-Lexington Avenue — were among those PacificCoastHighway had opposed in his comment on the talk page. I had mixed feelings when I saw this, for while I had personally supported merging these articles, I also support the consensus process, and in these two instances there was no consensus. As you've seen before (e.g., the renaming of 42nd Street-Grand Central), when you go around the consensus process, you're liable to get reverted, and your efforts go to waste.

I would continue with the "simple" ones (the two-station merges where there is no real issue with the name of the article), and build up to the more complex or potentially controversial merges. Marc Shepherd 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot what Pacific Coast Highway said. I remenber saying such, but when I was ready to merge I forgot. Sorry! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complex names

As we're seeing on the WP:NYCS talk page, the name of a merged complex seems to be highly important to people. When I agreed to merge the four Canal Street articles, the proposal was to create Canal Street Chinatown Complex (New York City Subway), not just Canal Street (New York City Subway). The latter is ambiguous, since there are two other Canal Street stations not connected to the Chinatown complex. Marc Shepherd 14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we started this merging project, you said not to get into the case of inconsistent names. Adding the "Chinatown Complex" is inconsistent, and I don't believe it should be added. However, because of the disambig page, we can add a caption, stating: This article is about the Canal Street Complex. For other uses, see Canal Street (disambiguation). There is a template for this kind of caption, and I believe it will help so we don't get into the matter of inconsistent names. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 9 Changes

I think they've all already been unprotected. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Station Complex merges partially done

Thanks for your hard work on this. I have moved a few of the merged articles to better names, but otherwise all the "heavy" lifting was done – and I know what a time-consuming job it can be.

Members of the WikiProject NYCS have consistently opposed the creation of a single article for 14th Street–Sixth–Seventh Avenues, no matter what we call it, so I think we should probably let that one rest for now. Editors tend to think that "14th Street–Sixth–Seventh Avenues" is an ugly name. But including the 7th Ave/14th St station in an article called "14th Street–Sixth Avenue" is rather misleading. Marc Shepherd 13:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points on Fulton Street–Broadway–Nassau:

Three out of the four original stations there are called "Fulton Street". Those three are also the oldest of the four.
Practically everyone thinks of it as the "Fulton Street" station complex.
As we've seen in other discussions, one can find MTA literature to support just about anything
The station structure being built there is the Fulton Street Transit Center
Fulton Street–Broadway–Nassau was the proposal for which consensus was sought, and obtained, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway

This is only anecdotal, but as a regular user of that station, I can tell you that riders unfamiliar with the area are confused that "Broadway-Nassau" is in the name at all. People think of it as the Fulton Street station. Obviously, the construction of the new transit center, which is named only for Fulton Street, will only exacerbate this. Clearly the Wikipedia name (see WP:NAME) should emphasize what the average non-specialist would think of as the name of the complex. Marc Shepherd 14:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Station table

If it were possible to use those small "bullets" as on the MTA pages, then we might be getting somewhere. In the MTA table, because those bullets are small, the station name dominates each row—as it should. In your current version, with "Rush hours in the Peak Direction" written out, that's what grabs the reader's attention, rather than the station name. Marc Shepherd 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never uploaded images either, so I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help --- all I could do is what you have done, which is to look at the help pages. Let me caution you that there might be as copyright issue with those bullets. At first blush I wouldn't think so, but Wikipedia is very skittish on copyright issues. Marc Shepherd 16:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The newest version is something I could support, provided you add the accessibility column at the left. I would fill it in for a complete service, and then offer it at the WP:NYCS talk page for consensus. Marc Shepherd 13:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't mind putting the {{Access icon}} after the station name, as the MTA does, though there may be other editors who feel more strongly about it. We are not obligated to slavishly imitate the MTA's format. I would not use the MTA's colored handicapped icon. The standard Wikipedia icon, which is used all over the place, is more attractive. Marc Shepherd 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Imdanumber1! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 01:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New subway table

Did you put the table in any of the subway lines yet? The Legendary Ranger 21:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Late night and weekend service changes

I removed all those late night and weekend service changes on the IRT lines. They shouldn't be added because these changes are only temporary, even if they lasted for eight months. G.O.s, no matter how long, should not be added to the service history. The Legendary Ranger 12:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYCS navbox

Please stop reverting the NYCS navbox. Hex codes should be used for the colors so they are more distinct and easier to be viewed on a monitor. The <font=yellow> code is too bright and hex code FFCC33 should be used as it is darker and more distinct of a color. Hex code FF6600 was used instead of orange to get a darker orange color to be more distinct from the yellow. Other changes were made to the navbox besides the colors, included adding an Under construction section, so please stop reverting my revisions that I have put a lot of time into making and post your thoughts on the talk page. →Crashintome4196 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Subway Service Information table consensus at WP:NYCS

so you want me to visit all those linked pages one by one and decided to vote your little issue? The Legendary Ranger 19:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are only discussions at the WP:NYCS talk page, that's all. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

closed station icon

Image:NYCS-SSI-closed.svg – flamurai (t) 03:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Flamurai. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to do with the third parameter? I edited it so you get A ^(a). Is that right? All the stuff that looks like {{!!}} and whatnot is table code since the parserfunctions interpret pipes first. – flamurai (t) 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been denied. Please see the request page for details. -- RM 19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal report

You posted on the wrong page - you want the main page, not the talk page! --Dweller 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, use WP:AIV, not WT:AIV, in the future. I have blocked the user. Alphachimp 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFAr nomination

I removed your statement for running from arb-com as you need 1,000 edits before October 1st to run, which you didn't have. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a warning Anyone with over 1000 edits as of 01-October-2006 on en.wikipedia may run. Sorry about that, maybe next year. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom isn't really anti vandalism is any case (Vandalism is mostly delt with by editors and editors with admin powers). If you want to get involved in disspute resolution there is the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or you could hang out at RFC and see if you can help with any of the dissputes that are listed there.Geni 16:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

I'm not approving you for AWB...as only want it to boost your edit count. Enjoy your wikibreak. Alphachimp 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB is for doing meaningful, repeated tasks that will benefit the encyclopedia. Examples include corrections of repeated spelling errors, addition of talk page templates, my addition of bus service information to subway articles, and other things. Nothing you do on this site should be motivated by increasing your edit count....nothing ever. It's ridiculous, it costs the foundation money in terms of database size and server traffic, and, by the sound of it, provides no meaningful benefit other than something to brag about in an rfa. hope that helps, Alphachimp 17:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Line (although applicable elsewhere)

Just a few points:

There's no need to spell out "Subway service information," seeing as how the topic of the article is a subway line. "Service information" should work fine and is more concise.
When using templates, you can just leave out all of the blank fields. Including them doesn't help; it just makes the page longer.
Table headings should be all lowercase except for the first letter, and wherever else it is appropriate (e.g., proper nouns, etc.).
Using the UTF-8 symbols for dashes (i.e., directly using – and — rather than the HTML character entities) results in cleaner code that is easier to edit.

These were edits to 3 (New York City Subway service) that you made. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

I just thought you would benefit from reading this before marking any more edits as minor. I'm not saying you're overdoing it, but it is really helpful to know when edits really are minor. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

42 St-5 Av-BP

Yes, but that's obviously because there's no space to separate them. The GIF map can only be made so large, because some people can't download it quickly enough (dial-up access etc.). And correspondingly, the text on that GIF can only be so small before becoming illegible. It's impressive how little they had to shove stuff together in that midtown section, and only had to resort to 42/5. ~~There's more evidence that this is just for space concerns more than anything else.~~ (Wow that sentence was nearly incoherent. I have no idea how I wrote that.) For that matter, the stations could be considered distinct enough to not be a complex. They're somewhat separated and are even shown on the map that way (as opposed to 168th Street, 161-Yankee Stadium, Broadway Junction, Myrtle-Wyckoff, Times Square, Grand Central, and so forth).

But let's forget all of the above matters for a moment: The article title is still pretty unwieldy as "42nd Street-Fifth Avenue-Bryant Park (New York City Subway)".

Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Whenever you like -- Tawker 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Bot

I have some experience working with AWB in NYCS. What exactly do you need help with? I responded over on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy, but I'd be totally willing to help you with it either on or off wiki. alphachimp. 01:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't realize, I responded on my talk. alphachimp. 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your mail. alphachimp. 16:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]