Jump to content

User talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2014/Feb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyedit


Your editor review

I have reviewed you. I was looking through random pages and I stumbled on this one. Just to inform you. EthicallyYours! 06:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Thanks for alerting me to the posting on the noticeboard. Here's my explanation of the situation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Harassment by user: Uyvsdi. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nostrand Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Subway service)|CC]]''' and the '''[[E (New York City Subway service)|E]]''' switched terminals (the '''CC''' now ran to the [[Chambers Street – World Trade Center (IND Eighth Avenue Line)|Hudson

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 February 2014 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Station layout diagrams

Okay, look, these are 2-D, unless you have some sort of uber-hi-tech holographic monitor that no one else does. And that's my biggest problem with them. The track-and-platform level portions are laid out like they're a top-down view, but the mezzanine and other levels are placed alongside them, making it look like it is on the same level and adjacent to it, not above or below. The small sketchy labels (M, G, etc) do not sufficiently inform an unfamiliar reader about that. That could be solved if there were a key to the diagram, but there is not. As such, I don't think they do a good job if informing the reader, just throwing a confusing diagram at them.

The key issue could be solved if these diagrams were more standardized and implemented using templates, as they could at the least link to a key, like the rail line diagrams do. And that would also solve the raised-many-times-by-many-editors issue of the very large amount of raw HTML code they add to an article. The amount of code is also particularly bad for an article on a simple station where there's just a single island or two side platforms. Those just don't need diagrams at all; adding them is simply bloat.

Finally, when you add something and someone reverts, it's just bad form to re-add it without opening discussion (WP:BRD). As the person seeking to make the change, when someone reverts with an objection, it is up to you to make the case that the change is needed, not for the objector to make the case that it is not. I will it revert again, as to avoid an edit war, but I really have to wonder if these diagrams should have been given a thorough getting and discussion at an appropriate project, like WT:TRAINS or WP:NYCPT first. It certainly would have helped to address my issues. oknazevad (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem, it's not inherently clear that they're not on the same plane, especially with the diagram trying to show both a cutaway vertical view and a top-down platform view. I just don't know if it works. oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, okay. A line across all three columns means that the floors are separated. The first column shows the floor number, the second shows a description of the floor (or the track name), and the third column is a longer description of the floor or the track. The layout idea is from the Chinese and Taiwanese metro station layouts, so you should probably ask the original creators of these templates. Epicgenius (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

wrong editing done in thr chhindwara page

Requested sir in the chhindwara page you added it is a birth place of chhindwara which is a wrong text.. this is only an spam and someone maked the wrong use . Pls undo the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.49.210.231 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Neon Lights Tour

I felt I should mention that when you reverted "aka Flop" on "Neon Lights Tour", the IP who made that was not at all making that edit in good faith. In fact, it was vandalism that you reverted. Thank you for reverting that edit, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know it was vandalism, but thanks for the thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

  1. Now how about adding only Truth to my page?
  2. Also, where do I find the email link on user pages? By the way, I can't create an account (page blocked on my PC).
  3. Is it allowed to write danish with a fellow dane on English Wikipedia?
  4. "→ IF YOU ARE NEW OR UNREGISTERED, IT IS NECESSARY THAT YOU CLICK THIS, BUT OPTIONAL ←" does not make sense. It can't be necessary, but optional. You may want to change it to, preferably, "IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT YOU CLICK THIS, BUT OPTIONAL ←"

(The link down here was an error, I use this editing box on Wikipedia to access blocked pages on my PC (even though I had no reason to go to that link; need to log in to the site to find what I wanted to look at), but accidentally saved it)--78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. Which page are you talking about?
  2. You really can't send email unless you're logged in. By the way, you can request an account to be created for you.
  3. As long as it isn't disruptive, sure.
  4. That last one is a joke. You really don't have to click it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. My user page.
  2. Still, that page for requesting an account is blocked on this PC.
  3. Thanks.
  4. Thanks.
  5. Why am I having trouble copying from your guestbook?
  6. Your user page takes long to load. User_talk:Wnt is even longer but takes shorter to load. Might be the images?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. Thanks.
  2. I don't really know what to do in that case.
  3. No problem.
  4. No problem.
  5. Why do you want to copy from my guestbook?
  6. Well, at least I don't have 252 sections on my userpage. I'm pretty confused—my user page is only 697 bytes long. Epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you're talking about. User:Epicgenius/Userpage/Rest of year is 47,300 bytes long. Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  1.  
  2.  
  3.  
  4.  
  5. Wanted to ask SlavaRodionov what her entry means.
  6. I can access that page by typing User:Epicgenius.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  7. Can you translate these from danish to english and give all the translations Google provides if you decide to use Google (Google/translator sites are blocked on my PC; there is no context between the words)?: Overhale. Selvfølge (NOT selvfølgelig). Gad vide. Desværre. From english to danish: Bless.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not know that much Danish. I'm Chinese. Maybe you can ask at the help desk. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Helpdesk? But this is not about help about editing or using WP.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, question 7 is loosely "Overhauling. Of course. I wonder. Sadly." in that order. Epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Another person gave a better translation. "Overtake. Of course. Wondering. Unfortunately."--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I know, I cobbled stuff from what I did know, which is about nothing, so I looked it up on Google Translate. Epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Weird, the other person used Google too. I'm not sure you may edit my posts.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed, you asked PrimeHunter too. He's Danish, so pretty naturally, he would speak Danish better than a Chinese person would.Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Offtopic, but people continue being stupid. I asked a worker at my place if my neighbor was smoking, and he said you shall not worry about that. Wanted to give him the F. ;)--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
…Meanwhile, there are national crises going on. Epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
What does &hellip ; mean? - Offtopic, but maybe a sign of the end? That page has another sign of the end; the demonstrations began on 11-21-13 at night (can you find the time?) UKR time (same as Jerusalem time), and the end is 11-21-14 midnight Jerusalem time. So might be precisely 1 year, nevertheless it's very close to exactly 1 year.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That's HTML markup, just like &ndash ;, &nbsp ;, and &mdash ; (remove the spaces before each semicolon, they produce –,  , and — respectively). It produces ellipsis "…". Epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. But why "hell ip/hellip"? Offtopic: I have calculated the earthquake will be 15.8 or 21.11. So mighty and earthquake, and so great. Please don't take offense.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict x3) Don't be offended, but it is very unlikely that an earthquake will even go that high, due to the fact that the scale is produced exponentially. So an earthquake with such a high magnitude would rupture the fabric of space and time and create new parallel universes. Yeah, it stinks, but…you gotta do what you gotta do. Now I have to deal with the effects of a blizzard that is coming my way. Talk to you tomorrow whenever it has been determined that this topic is germane to the end of the world. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Who decides if it's germane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.109.166 (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Not I. Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I have determined it is germane to the end of the world, the Bible speaks of so mighty an earthquake = the end of the world. We saw Chile, Haiti, Japan. That was just the beginning, the next one will be at least 57 times bigger, most likely 12.11 times bigger. The end is 11-21-14 and if you say 12.11 times bigger than the Japan quake you get 21.11 Magnitude, which is in context with the date, as is Luke 21:11 (mentions great earthquakes). 12.11 is also in context with 11-21-14 if you read it backwards or mirrored.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, an earthquake at that magnitude will actually be a starquake. There is no way that the solar system will survive through this. Not only that, but it may even create black holes. Epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Gounder

Gounder
Hi Epicgenius,

I want to edit the Gounder wiki page. the Gounder title mostly refers to Vettuva Gounders instead of Kongu Vellalars. Plaese do the changes needfull.

Regards, K.D.Saravanan MCA Sarwaanmca (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hello Epicgenius,

This is regarding my first wiki edit, so please excuse any ignorance on my part. It seems yesterday the STiki flagged my edit, and it was reverted with your assessment of good faith.

The image I added to the Sudetenland page appears on the page de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstagswahl_1938, and had been posted to the wiki commons area in 2009. Therefore, I didn’t think there was any controversy about it.

But to clarify why I thought (and still think) it’s a useful inclusion here:

I read this page some time ago and was confused by the statistics in the section I edited on the 1938 elections in Sudetenland. In my limited experience of political elections, when a party wins by such a high percentage (97.32% in this case), it almost always points to election fraud. However, given the known high level of support for the NSDAP in this area, it seemed confusing to me that election fraud would have been considered necessary by the NSDAP. So it hadn’t made sense to me. Then seeing the election ballot evaporated that confusion. To me, it's an excellent illustration of how a totalitarian regime thinks. Therefore, I felt its inclusion on this page might be useful for others as well.

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathlynn (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If it needs inclusion, feel free to include it back. Epicgenius (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

do u study taiji??

which source, everybody know connection with taiji, fa jin and chan ssy jin

You still need to add reliable sources. Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Vienna Airport

Dear Epicgenius,

thanks for your mail concerning my constributions for the Vienna Airport.

As you asked I should write if I think you weren´t right I´m doing that now.

The English Wikipedia Site of the Airport is like an advertisement without paying. things appear different than they are. The environmental impact assessment wasn´t done when they already started to build the new check in hall. this is still a case in the EU court and the building is already in use. Yesterday I came home from my holiday flight and heard all people around lough about those architects and comment the really bad planned terminal with extraordinary long walkways.

Now they already planned the third runway and keep telling everyone that Austria needs it although the passanger number is going down. The only ones who needs it are the investors. This is a very high price the Austrian citicens (especially those who live under the flight routes) have to pay and only a few people earn. So please change the things as they really are without being a free ad.

thank you and greetings from the now very cold Vienna,

Elisabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisako (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement that it is very slow this year needs to be supported with reliable sources. It wasn't reliable, so I reverted it in good faith. If you add some sources for the third runway, it can be re-added without problem. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

good faith on Gili Islands

hi,

Thank you for your correction. But you mistaken. There are 2 ways to get to Gili Islands, and that is the truth. About the agent and the fast boat company, they are legit. --Bali2gili (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The revert was a week ago. Still, please see Wikipedia:TRAVELGUIDE. These two ways are still present in the article after my revert. Epicgenius (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting clarification

Hi Epicgenius. You recently tag the page plug-in electric vehicle as too long. This is a mother article that branches to many others and several of its section were already split to new articles. I am about to complete an update of full 2013 sales (last section). Would you be so kind to detail which content/sections you consider too long. This is a GA article and I would like to keep its rating as it is today, so I can take the opportunity and do some trimming or split content to a new article. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

At 292K bytes, it may need some splitting. For example, the incentives can probably be moved to another article, and so can many of the advantages and disadvantages. While I believe that the quality of the article is GA-class, the length of the prose of the article means that it can take a long time (maybe hours) for one to read the entire article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. Incentives was already split to Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles. I thought that maybe the sales section and the end sales table could be trimmed to keep the most relevant material, particularly since some countries already have their own PEV article (US, UK, Norway, Japan) and I am planning to create soon new articles about France and the Netherlands. See for example Plug-in electric vehicles in Norway. What do you think? --Mariordo (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that will be a good idea. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I will start the update this weekend, together with the trimming. I will use an "under construction" tag for the sales table since it takes too many edits to complete. When I am finished, I would like you to evaluate if the "too long" tag can be removed. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

History-merging requests

Tom DeLonge

Sorry dude, but I'm a dynamic IP address. Consider complaining to Wikipedia for their confusing commenting system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.242.77 (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, but comments like that need to be posted to the talk page, not to the article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of noinclude on List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological)

The noincludes are needed because both List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological) and List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) are transcluded onto List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters. Now it may make sense for the noinclude sections to be hatnotes, but the noinclude needs to be there, one way or another.Naraht (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll re-add them. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For your comment at my RfA. Just a technicality - I think it would be my second chance, not third? I haven't lost the mop twice, only once... :) Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Oh. I saw that you had two previous RfAs, so this would be your third, so that's what I meant. But thank you for the explanation. Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox legislature

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox legislature. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the oppose

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for the oppose on my ban. I appreciate it. I'm also sorry I am posting from this username. Unfortunately the admins have preemptively blocked the IP's I was using in an effort to force me to create an account, so they could then be able to justify blocking me for socking (I really hate it how they are allowe to bait the trap like this) I had to create one for now. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko BannedEditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@BannedEditor: It is okay, and I hope you don't get banned. You've been a great contributor all these years, and while you recent behavior is not the most reasonable, it isn't bad enough that Wikipedia needs to stop operating immediately. Happy editing to you as well, Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your support and kind words during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Also, another thanks for recognizing certain harassment for what it was. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Piotrus! That baklava was great. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Extremely Dangerous

Template:Extremely Dangerous has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Philosophic burden of proof

Hello,

I'm just beginning as an editor and you reverted two edits on the Philosophic burden of proof. I read through your vandalism page, but had trouble finding the pertinent section. Could I have more of an explanation? Was there a problem with the way it was sourced or did you not feel it was constructive? The content I added helped me immensely in understanding the topic and I imagine would help others too.

balljust (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Balljust: After reading over your edit again, I have found that nothing is really wrong with the edit. You just need to cite sources for your edit. Epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

American Bulldog

You recently marked my edit as 'not constructive.' It was actually constructive commentary, although I suppose that commentary belongs in the sand box? Where is the sand box? The problem is, this man Saylor insists his dog be the representative for the breed. The fact of the matter is, his dog IS atypical for the breed. Acceptable yes, but atypical definitely. American Bulldogs rarely look like that and it is misleading to represent them as such. Why wouldn't the page use one of Johnson or Scott's famous foundation dogs from the 1960s? Virtually every American Bulldog is related to those founders. Please point me towards the sandbox, Sir. This pic is coming down, and it's getting replaced with something appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.73.114 (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@96.248.73.114: My apologies for the unconstructive edit warning, but it just didn't seem right. You need to post such commentary on the article's talk page to see if others agree with you. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius Thank you, that's what I will do. That's what I would have done originally, had I known it was there. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.73.114 (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

GEM (disambiguation)

Hello Epicgenius, Thank you for the explanation. My goal is not to create a long article, but to add just one single sentence in Wikipedia: "GEM, in equity research the abbreviation for Global Emerging Markets" GEM (disambiguation)

This would help other people who may come across the abbreviation GEM in the context of equity research. What is the bottom line here? Should we create a new article with only one sentence/reference? Or is there a better way? Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarmo129 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tarmo129, the entry didn't have any links, and that is why I removed it. I may be wrong, but disambiguation pages' entries usually have links. Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Plug-in electric vehicles

Hi Epicgenius. During the past week I trimmed and updated the plug-in electric vehicle article, and was able to reduce it from 292,418 Kb to 260,423 Kb (readable prose - text only - went from 83K to 72K). I am aware that it is still above the recommended size, but because the article has already being split to several others, I do not see much further room for trimming. Can you take a look to evaluate if it is OK now to remove the tag you posted, or recommend which sections can be split or further improved. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mariordo: I think that the size of the article is OK now, and the tag can be removed (the article doesn't look like it can be shortened further without some of its sections being degraded in quality). In fact, I'll remove the tag right away. Good work on the article, by the way. Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Off loading charts into templates

I have reverted you moving of the charts at List of New York City Subway lines and List of New York City Subway services from the article into templates. that is not what templates are for, and templates should never be created for use in only one article. To quote the Wikipedia:Template namespace page: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." There's no point in moving the charts to a template; the correct place for that information is in the article itself. Moving it to a template does not save any loading time (actually, it makes it a little longer), and it makes editing more difficult, as an editor must go to the separate template page to make an edit. The templates should be deleted promptly, and the charts should be left exactly where they are. oknazevad (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: They shouldn't be deleted yet, as they are for use in {{NYCS const}} if you need to transclude it on another page. Otherwise, you would need to copy the entire table and place it onto the other page. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Blue Jasmine

Hi Epic, you deleted a comment I made about the Blue Jasmine because you said it wasn't constructive.

"After a whirlwind romance, Dwight (who doesn't seem to know anything about Google or Wikipedia) is about to buy an engagement ring for Jasmine when Augie happens to see them on the street and rails at her about what Hal did to him."

IMO this is a huge hole in the plot. Wouldn't you at least Google the name of someone you just met before marrying them? A little background check, especially for someone in a high profile occupation like Dwight. The movie crashed for me at this point. It just seem contrived and unreal.

Snapdog1000 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Snapdog1000. That statement does sound like a personal opinion, because not everyone would Google the names of people that they just met before marrying them. In fact, I know some people that wouldn't to do that. It just goes to show that people often don't do what is logical, but you should take it up on the talk page anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Seoul Metropolitan Subway

Hi, I have reverted your edit on List of metro systems because modifying a source's definition is WP:Vandalism. Please do not try to change the content of a source to promote a particular POV. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What POV? The New York City Subway has been the world's largest metro system by number of stations up until recently, when I'm guessing that over 200 new stations were added to the Seoul Metropolitan Subway, which I am sure that they are not. Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
We have discussed your concern in extreme length on List of metro systems' talk page. Just because you believe it is not what you have grown up to believe, doesn't mean you can remove the official source. But we do not have the right to declare neither Seoul nor NYC as the largest by station count. We simply list them as the official sources say. Again, only including line 1-9 is your original research, not what the source says. Please read WP:OR. I hope you understand this. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Activism

the word activist does not describe this person. He is a criminal and a terrorist. He is torturing and abusing people, this is not activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftwerkvs (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You still need to bring the issue up on the talk page. "Terrorist" is a word that implies that you are pushing a point of view. Epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Gender Theory

Gender studies and Gender theory are different things if you can better describe Gender theory you are welcome to do so, but redirect the subject isn't right thing to do, if you have any thoughts on the matter you are more than welcome to express yourself Gender McBender (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The right thing to do here is to add a new section to the Gender Studies page about whether the articles can be split. Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Atlantic Terminal move request

Hello Epicgenius. About this request. See Talk:Atlantic Terminal#Requested move 2012 where the same move did not gain consensus. Consider opening a new move discussion if you still think this is a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Okay, thanks. I didn't know about the RM, my apologies. Epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor Newsletter—February 2014

Did you know?
Click this image to see the details.

You can easily re-use references by going to the Insert menu, choosing "Reference", and clicking on "Use an existing reference" in the lower left corner. A list of all references, their numbers, and their ref names (if any) will be shown. You can search the list for any author, title, date, or other keyword. Read the user guide for more information.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some small changes to the user interface, such as moving the reference item to the top of the Insert menu, as well as some minor features and fixing bugs, especially for rich copying and pasting of references.

The biggest change was the addition of more features to the image dialog, including the ability to set alignment (left, right, center), framing options (thumbnail, frame, frameless, and none), adding alt text, and defining the size manually. There is still some work to be done here, including a quick way to set the default size.

  • The main priority is redesigning the reference dialog, with the goal of providing autofill features for ISBNs and URLs and streamlining the process. Current concept drawings are available at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. Please share your ideas about making referencing quick and easy with the designers.
  • A few bugs in the existing reference dialog were fixed. The toolbar was simplified to remove galleries and lists from the reference dialog. When you re-use references, it now correctly displays the references again, rather than just the number and name. If you paste content into a dialog that can't fit there (e.g. ==section headings== in references), it now strips out the inappropriate HTML.
  • You can now edit image galleries inside VisualEditor. At this time, the gallery tool is a very limited option that gives you access to the wikitext. It will see significant improvements at a later date.
  • The character inserter tool in the "Insert" menu is being redesigned. Your feedback on the special character inserter is still wanted, especially if you depend on Wikipedia's character inserters for your normal editing rather than using the ones built into your computer.
  • You can now see a help page about keyboard shortcuts in the page menu (three bars next to the Cancel button) (T54844).
  • If you edit categories, your changes will now display correctly after saving the page (T50560).
  • Saving the page should be faster now (T61660).
  • Any community can ask to test a new tool to edit TemplateData by leaving a note at T53734.

Looking ahead: The link tool will tell you when you're linking to a disambiguation or redirect page. The warning about wikitext will hide itself after you remove the wikitext markup in that paragraph. Support for creating and editing redirects is in the pipeline. Looking further out, image handling will be improved, including default and upright sizes. The developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments, some behavioral magic words like DISPLAYTITLE, and in-line language setting (dir="rtl").

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 04:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

NYC Subway Terminus layouts

I thank you for liking my edit on Pelham Bay Park. I understand the need for the templates, it decreases the overall byte size for the page, but all termini must be personalized. The only way I was able to properly fix Pelham Bay Park was that a template there was not established. I may be a rookie for all this coding in Wikipedia (I'm literally doing copy and paste for some of my edits), but in due time, I will learn. If you are interested, look at some of my layout edits on Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue, DeKalb Avenue, Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center, Jay Street-Metrotech, Broadway Junction and 145 Street. (For Broadway Junction, I altered the template for the track layout, since the coding was not directly in the page. Altering the template wasn't difficult.)

Fair warning, my former Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue edit looked wacky, but it fits its purpose. If one line has the whole track, the track direction will be the same color as the line. Like a northbound R train from 95 St to 36 St, 'northbound' will be colored yellow. Following that same principle, why not evenly split the RR direction label with the two lines that share the track? It makes sense, plus no more than two different color lines share the same track.

@DePeeper: I appreciate that you are trying to add the colors for the tracks. However, the colors should preferably only be used if the track is on a NYC Subway trunk line, or if the track is shared by trains from the same trunk line (e.g. the A/C trains at Broadway Junction). Otherwise, if the tracks are in multiple colors, it will make the text more distracting. Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Epicgenius. You have new messages at DePeeper's talk page.
Message added 05:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lichfield Canal Aqueduct

Thanks for picking up on the alternative name given by local residents. Unfortunately it is actually true but because it's word of mouth it's difficult to find a reference on the internet. It sometimes pops up on social media like Twitter and Facebook, but most of it is word of mouth between residents and commuters of the M6 toll. Could we add this in but mark it as needs citation, and then if I find a source on the web I'll reference it? Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.19.196 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You can re-add it, but note that other editors may remove it as unsourced. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Son Ye-jin

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I can understand Scandinavia17's behavior on Son Ye-jin; xe is a new user and might not understand the whole WP:BRD cycle. But you should. Once your revert of their picture change was re-reverted, you should have taken the matter directly to the talk page. Especially in a case like this, where the issue of one image being better than another is purely subjective. You prefer the face close-up; Scandinavia prefers the wider shot. So, go talk it out. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've done that on the talk page right now.Epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nigam

Hi Epic Sorry to say but the changes reverted by you in article:Nigam , were undid by me as i was damn sure that the information added by me was ture, I know that you had good intentions towards it , but believe me, my information is 100% ture as i personally confirmed with people of this cast. So please don't revert it again . Sincere Regards Older Historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Older historian (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Single platform station diagrams

Saw that you got to adding layout diagrams to the PVL stations. I'm just wondering if it makes more sense to include only one line with it saying "for all trains" or such, as it would be a better visual representation of the single track/single platform nature of these stations. As it stands, though the numbers are there, at first glance they appear to show two tracks. Secondly, including the next stations in each is redundant to the s-line templates already below the Infobox, and not needed. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I could probably do this:
1 ■ Pascack Valley Line ← for Spring Valley
→ for Hoboken →
Does that look good? I'm probably going to add the diagrams to stations more complex than the PVL stations (such as NE Corridor stations). Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. oknazevad (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Marlborough alumni Comment

Hi EG, I saw the removal of the list here and I don't want to change it back but I was interested to find out your reasoning behind it. Was it because you felt that, in general, any article about a school should not have a list of notable alumni, or perhaps, was it because it was not referenced, or did you have another reason? If you have a moment to let me know, I'd be grateful. Kind regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I removed it because it was unreferenced (I probably shouldn't have fully removed it; I should have used {{unreferenced section}} instead), and because the list of alumni wasn't very notable compared to the school itself. Feel free to put the list back in, but you should add some references to it. Epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much EG, Cheers. Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Transportation in New York City

Please see Template talk:Transportation in New York City. Pburka (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Recorder (musical instrument)

Your STiki based reversion of IP:87.221.91.33's edit to the above was a mistake. I followed the ISBN trail to [1] where the author clearly has no final "b". I have reverted your edit. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

All right. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Book of Revelation Modern Theories Undo of Matthew Revelation

Hi Epicgenius,

You removed the addition to the Book of Revelation Modern Theories. If you Google Matthew Revelation you will find the supporting evidence for this theory. It was not included with the addition as a reference, still the addition is valid. Please reconsider.

Respectfully, Steve Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.132.209 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

By all means you can add it back. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi EG, Thx, Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.132.209 (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Epicgenius. You have new messages at 64.251.146.225's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The War Between The Classes

Hi,

I altered the article because the word "Caucasian" as a synonym for White/West Eurasian is inherently confusing. There are, after all, actual Caucasians (people from the Caucasus) in the world. Best Wishes. 50.176.161.22 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Sorry, I misread your edit. You may revert it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Version Control

How can a version of an article now be flagged if it's been online for months? It was character for character the same as it was. I just now went even further back. Will this stay? ShvWebmaster (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edit introduced a lot of vandalism and copyright problems. My apologies if you did not introduce these problems, but that's how it was when I saw the page. Epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I truncated the article, deleting any such problems. Is this acceptable? ShvWebmaster (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks fine. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WTC PATH Station Layout

Hi, thanks for updating the WTC PATH Station layout to reflect the newly opened Platform A. I'm not sure how to properly edit that table, but I wanted to share what I do know about the new station so far.

The new HOB track in operation is now Track 1 on Platform A. It is the northern most track against the slurry wall. Platform A is an island platform. Track 2 (formerly Track 1) is currently walled off and not in service.

I believe that the closed and under construction portions of the station should be moved to fall under the Transportation Hub and no longer under the Temporary Station label. This would involve renaming Track 2 to 3 and Track 3 to 4 (with island Platform B in between).

Also what was Track 3 is no longer in service (all HOB service has been moved to the new Track 1). From what I can tell, the Port Authority has already begun work to erect a construction wall between the current Tracks 3 and 4, to allow them to build Platform B. This will leave the existing Tracks 4 and 5 to be isolated in the temporary station and will be the last platform (Platform C) to be reconstructed.

There is also a Track 6 which is a support track and will never run revenue service. I don't believe this track will have a publicly accessible platform. Drumz0rz (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message; I'll update the layout right now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for your input, Drumz0rz. Epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

February 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vance Miller. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DES (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So, talk page then? Epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, talk page. I was prepared to block both you and Auchunesha (more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period is usually an automatic block and you both sit at 4), but since you've both stopped for now I'll back off. While this is a BLP, you're fighting over whether the subject was born in England or North West England, which isn't a dire issue that demands immediate retraction. -- Atama頭 18:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I realized that the dispute was pointless, that's why I stopped reverting. Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not the worst thing to ever get into a dispute over, look at WP:LAME if you haven't before, it's entertaining (to me at least). -- Atama頭 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
All right, I won't revert trivial details like this next time. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Haven Line may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Brookville BL20-GH|BL20-GH]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South Brooklyn may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 36th Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • bull-small|D}} {{NYCS-bull-small|N}} toward Coney Island – Stillwell Avenue (late nights) <small>(Ninth Avenue ('''{{NYCS|D}}''') or 45th Street ('''{{NYCS|N}}''')</small> →<br><span style=color:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to London Underground anagram map may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Map, a series of animations that were shown on the large screen on Buchanan St in Glasgow) and a pop-out Anagram Map of Glasgow designed by Mark Campbell and published by the Map Group.</

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Station layout diagram thought

So I had a thought regarding the listing of next station and terminal station/ultimate destinations on the station layout diagrams. I think they should be flipped, with the next station being listed in larger text first, with the ultimate terminal in small print and parenthesis afterwards. It just seems to me that the next station is more relevant and immediate, so it should get the larger print if both are to be listed. Of course, that also seems pretty duplicative of the s-line succession boxes, so I don't particularly think the next station is needed at all, but if it is to be included, it should be listed first. I've tried my hand at what I mean at Terminals 2/3 (AirTrain JFK station). Let me know what you think. oknazevad (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oknazevad. I like the diagram, but I believe that the terminal station should be in normal text because it is where the train is ultimately heading toward. Similarly, the next stop should be in small text because it is just a station on the wayside on the train's journey toward the last stop, except in the penultimate stations of each line, where the word "Terminus" shows that the next stop is the terminus. In the layouts that were originally written for the Taipei Metro and Guangzhou Metro, the terminal was placed before the next stop, so I had based the NYC-area railroad layouts on the Taipei/Guangzhou layouts. Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Just as a side note that Singapore MRT layouts also have the terminal first, then "via [station name]" if applicable. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I'd just remove the next station outright, based on what I said about it being redundant to the s-line succession templates in the infobox. We don't need to duplicate efforts, especially when the purpose of the diagrams are to show the station layout, not the station services (that's the s-line's purpose). oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: I actually think the next-stops are beneficial to put the s-line into perspective in regards to the direction of the train. I don't think they should be removed—at least not yet. Epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epicgenius/Archive/2014/Feb&oldid=1076065126"