User talk:Epicgenius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page was last edited or modified by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk, contribs) on Tuesday 1:48:09 September 2, 2014 (UTC).


Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC
Wikimedia LGBT outreach logo.svg

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Scarborough MTA station[edit]

Epicgenius, thanks for the content additions, although I don't believe 922 passengers is supported by the source you used; it instead appears to be the number of passengers listed for Yonkers.--ɱ (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@: Yes, you are right. According to a MTA file on Pedestrian Observations Wordpress, weekday and weekend inbound boardings at Scarborough are 742 and 135, respectively. I need better source, however. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
So where did you get 922 and August 2006? The above linked source is for 2007, and it lists 865. Aren't those the numbers we want? ɱ (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@: I don't know. The article said 922 in Aug. 2006 in the source already there. By the way, I noticed the article has been nominated for GA. I may be able to provide suggestions tomorrow morning but I may not be able to do the review itself, due to my having edited the article before. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The source already there (also here) says 885. Where are you seeing 922? Also, I would be glad to have more suggestions. And WP:GAN/I only discourages heavy editors, I don't think anyone would consider your edits today to be very heavy.--ɱ (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am referring to my edits earlier this year, when I added the platform configuration that is about 5% of the article (still not a lot compared to what you did; good work, by the way). Anyway, the text before says: {{As of|August 2006}}, daily commuter ridership was 922.<ref name="Stats"/>. I have changed the infobox text accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't see that you had added the platform information. With regard to that, I haven't edited too many train-related articles so I'm unfamiliar with what's standard, but I saw a table that looked clearer on another train station article. I know the current one is in use on most (if not all) MTA station articles, but I think that developing something like User:Ɱ/sandbox14 may be clearer for readers. Do you agree?--ɱ (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, your station platform layout table in your sandbox is a better table to use. It gives more details about the platform shape and the levels of the station. Epicgenius (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

() OK, cool. I'll begin formatting it for the article tomorrow.--ɱ (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't respond in time. Sounds like a good idea to me. Epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I finished the formatting. The template doesn't give me a lot of room, but I have two possible choices, User:Ɱ/sandbox13 and User:Ɱ/sandbox14. Which do you prefer?--ɱ (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I like #13 better. I've changed both of the layouts, by the way, to make them more visually presentable. Epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, looks good. Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bernard Tschumi
added a link pointing to Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
New York Aquarium
added a link pointing to Human remains

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


...stop combining street articles unnecessarily, and without discussion beforehand. Your behavior is becoming disruptive, and if you continue, I will have to bring it to the attention of the noticeboards. BMK (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

So why don't you stop making unnecessary unmerges? Your restoration of East River Esplanade, for example, is totally unnecessary, as it's a park that is considered part of the East River Greenway. (Also, your edit of SHoP Architects to undo an edit I made because of your claim that I stalked you is totally rubbish. I'd also mention a list of pages that you followed me on,* but it'd detract from the main points,) Anyway, what unmerges do you want to discuss? Epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
*(For example, Blue Condominium Tower and Vesey Street, neither of which you edited before, but both of which you moved because I edited them a day or two before. Epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC))
You need to stop stop your merging of small, detailed articles into larger, harder to find, omnibus article, without any discussion at all, there will continue to be problems. You've been here long enough to know that disruptive editing, and editing without or against consensus are serious problems, which generally end up with serious remedies. BMK (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll stop merging these articles. You should stop reverting my edits indiscriminately. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not reverted your edits "indiscriminately". Those that are good, I have left as is - but you can't see that - those that are not beneficial I have reverted, as always.

BTW, You should probably consider not making image and layout adjustments, they are not your strong point.

(And of course you "stalked" me -- you admitted to it in an edit summary on this very page. You know full well that is the case, so I presume that you're posturing for your talk page audience. Do I have to take the time to search back in this page's history to find the edit?) BMK (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so they mostly aren't indiscriminate.

I'm trying to learn to make better image adjustments through trial and error; if it's out of place, I re-adjust it.

That edit summary was nine nine or so months ago... Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was recent, but it did happen, and you admitted to it - and also promised not to do it again. When I see you popping up on pages that I've edited that you've never edited before, and that have no obvious connection to your normal range of subjects, my Spidey-sense starts tingling. Of course, we have a large overlap in subjects that we're both interested in, so I expect to see you on those articles and other related ones, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Let's please keep it that way.

BTW, edits can't be "mostly" indiscriminate, that's like being a sort of unique or a little pregnant - I'm either reverting your edits indiscriminately or I'm not. I'm not. BMK (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

So they aren't indiscriminate reverts after all. I see. Anyway, I'm glad we can find an amicable solution to this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Unused NYCS templates[edit]

Hi Epicgenius. Are Template:NYCS Platform Layout IRT Pelham Line and Template:NYCS demolish, both of which are unused, still required? If not, I'll nominate them for deletion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@DH85868993: No, they aren't needed. The platform layout was meant to replace four other platform layouts, and the other template was meant for demolished stations, but both templates were superseded. You can nominate them for deletion. Epicgenius (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I've nominated them both for speedy deletion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I've reverted your edits on both the F and G train articles, respectively. I mean we've had many weather-related shutdowns, minor derailments etc, and none of them are mention here on Wikipedia, are they? We're not going to mention every last one of them, are we? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. However, the F train derailment (in a history section that is written in bullet points) isn't part of the service history, so it shouldn't be included because it would be an awkward setup. Consequently, the G train shutdown (in a history section that is written in prose) is continuous for five weeks, so it should be included. By the way, the F article's history section needs to be rewritten as prose, so that it would look less awkward. Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Bill Thompson, person, place or thing[edit]

I noticed your move to Bill Thompson (comptroller), and you are correct, he is not a place, but for that matter he is not the Comptroller, either, any more. "Comptroller" is not what he does for a living, it is just one of the public offices he has held. He is, however, still a "politician," and it is typical to have a more general phrase like that in a title. But it can't be Bill Thompson (politician) because there is already a Bill Thompson (South Dakota politician), Bill Thompson (Ohio politician) and Bill Thompson (Wyoming politician). So I think it would make sense to follow the existing pattern and move this to Bill Thompson (New York politician). Neutron (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Neutron: I didn't notice that before. Now that I think about it, I also noticed that he hasn't been only a comptroller. Thanks for the heads up; I will move it now. Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: Moved. Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)