User talk:RJN/Archive 4

RE: New York City

You stated:

Corrected information. The July 1, 2004 U.S. Census estimate for New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island MSA placed the population at 18,709,802

Could you provide a source please? The census b. showed that in 2000 the population was 21,199,865 [1] -- and by all accounts the city has grown since then. It seems to me that your new number is understating the population. -Quasipalm 20:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 18 million number is far lower than the number cited by most sources. The reason is that the area covered in the US Census estimate does not include the NYC suburbs in Connecticut, even though in many cases they are closer to NYC than suburbs in NJ. This number is simply not an accurate reflection of the area's aggregate population. Wv235 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make up the 18.7 million figure for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island MSA. I provided a link to the source which you have reverted. I only went by what the U.S. Census provided. If you want to talk about the combined statistical area (CSA), then it would be the New York-Newark-Bridgeport CSA and currently has a population of 22 million. CSAs, however, are not metropolitan areas—they combined several metropolitan areas and micropolitan areas of a region. See United States metropolitan area.

Also, your edit summary on the New York City article made it seemed like I have vandalized the article by putting in false information—which I did not—and I do not appreciate that. RJN 23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RJN, I'm copying your message to reply here. I think my revision summary is an attempt to clarify a confusing set of numbers. It definitely was not meant to suggest you were doing vandalism. I've seen your other edits to the NYC article and they've all been spot on, and the revision in question about census figures is not "false information," but rather a question of which figures to use. Your edits have been really helpful and not at all dishonest. I regret that I gave you such an impression.

About the numbers in question, the issue is CSA vs MSA. In this case, CSA more closely resembles what is generally considered (by residents) the New York metropolitan area, specifically the Connecticut suburbs. If you look at a map it makes sense: the MSA cuts out a chunk along a north-south axis on the NYC-CT state border, whereas the CSA more realistically disregards this political boundary. The MTA, for example, runs all of New York City's transit networks and has three main commuter rail lines, one of which runs along the Connecticut coast. Transportation planners consider the CSA to be the metro region they deal with.

The NYC article text reads "New York City has a population of 8.1 million within an area of 321 square miles (approximately 830 km²). It is at the heart of the New York Metropolitan Area, which at a population of..." The NY Metro Area is linked to a seperate Wikipedia article, which defines the metro area as the CSA. The Wikipedia Megacity article also cites the NY CSA in its listing of mega cities. This seems to reflect a consensus that parts of CT should be included as part of the NY metro area.

Thanks for the info about changing from CMSAs and PMSAs to CSA, MSA, and MD. The CMSA stat I cite is from 2000, which because of the time that's passed somewhat undercounts the region. Do you have a similar stat that is more up to date? Wv235 23:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Census bureau also seems to view the CSA as a more accurate reflection of the NY metro region than MSA. In a press release after the 2000 census it describes the NY metro population as "the most populous metro area with a population

of 21.2 million." Since then the population has grown, but using the MSA measurement it would seem toa hve shrunk 5 million people in four years. [2]

I'll change it back, but I'm going to put a note about these issues in the references section. The points you raise are important. Wv235 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your deal with insisting on calling hurricane evacuees "refugees"? Is this just a personal thing with you? Most national media outlets have agreed it makes more sense to use "evacuees." You obviously felt strongly since you actively changed it back on the houston page. Wbbigtymer 07:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CC licences

Hi, I see that you are uploading images from flickr, like Image:Imperial Sugar char house.jpg. You have tagged the images as a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 images, but it is a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0, non commerical images are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please be more careful when reading the licences.--nixie 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

signing your posts

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.177.35.2's edits at kinetic energy

I wonder why did you revert those edits, which were probably not very good and yet good-faithed, with an edit summary that makes it look like vandalism? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted the annon's edits because I thought some of the wordings/information (s)he modified were weird. I reverted for the time being because I was not sure. I have reverted my reversion back to his version for now, until someone else takes a look at his changes and verify that they are legitimate. RJN 19:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can also see in Talk:Kinetic energy, I scrutinized (sort of) the issue and arrived at the conclusions that his edits are legitimate, and yet in my opinion not very good. Accordingly, I will revert his changes - you can let us know your thoughts on the matter in the talk page. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]