User talk:Fabartus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

SEMI-RETIRED
WIKIPEDIA EDITOR 


This user is only sporadically actually active on Wikipedia as of October 2013.

Main Line of Public Works[edit]

Please see the New York Times story entitled "Sale of the Main Line of Public Works of Pennsylvania" published in that newspaper on June 26, 1857 reporting the sale of the "Main Line of Public Works" of Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania Railroad for $7,500,000 made in Philadelphia the previous day. I added this reference to the Main Line of Public Works article last week where it appears in the references section as footnote #6. As this citation provides proof positive that this is the name by which this complex transportation system of railroad and canal works built by the state in the first half of the of the 19th century was known at the time (and is therefore clearly not an invented term coined "for academic studies years later", I have again removed the "[need quotation to verify]" tag that you reapplied to the article earlier today presumably because you did not see that this citation that you had requested had already been added to the article. Centpacrr (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Appreciate the due diligence, but not sure a single newspaper article is any less an awkwardly constructed term, nor that it should be kept as a separate article. Who would ever search for it that way, and why should it be sundered from the main cultural context (and indeed duplicate said content) as well. I'll think on it a few days and for now keep the Mergeto tag on. Note I have not hung a corresponding Mergefrom tag pending these discussions. (Cross-posting the article talk) // FrankB 15:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just as an humorous aside... note the title I'm objecting to likely came about because of LAWYERS being involved! LOL // FrankB 15:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have actually found 13 additional stories published in just the New York Times beginning as early as 1854 which include the term "Main Line of Public Works" as the name of this railroad/canal system. Perhaps I also have somewhat of an advantage in being familiar with this as well as I have lived since 1971 just three blocks from the Ardmore railroad station on this grade (now called the "Keystone Corridor") in the part of the Philadelphia's western suburbs which is still called the "Main Line". I have also been a professional writer for more than 45 years and among my seven published books are four on North American railroad history so I am very familiar with this term and its history. (See additional background information here Centpacrr (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't surprise me once you pointed the cite by the board and recommendation to the stock holders. Such a property transference would be politically controversial--there are always opposing factions in public-private interfacing events. (Heh! Just recalling local town hearings I've attended! Talk about understatements!!! LOL) Would be fun to take a day and read all those just to feel the flavor of the times!
Per the talk page, I'm no longer contesting the term, but the concern as always for me is the meaning and usefulness of the term. (I just closed an edit and linked it, so even I can learn! <g>) Further, you are perhaps missing the point that "As early as 185x" is LATE TO ME... I'm objecting because the article is linked as if it were history of the CANAL's hey day of operations... not because it's invalid historically (or insignificant, as I first suspected). The term has no validity until the political folderal discussing and proposing closing the Commission and sale to the PRR. That is all. As a writer with such a distinguished background, you can perhaps appreciate that. Try surveying a dozen what links here uses and see if it isn't being used out of context as when I came across it.
I was and am looking at 'founding's history', which is where I find it being misused as a kind of shotgun. The use of the term is OKAY provided the text in various places puts in the correct contexts. Perhaps more to the point, it is a handle for a bundle of properties. Do you cover other assets the Commission held and transferred elsewhere. Did the PRR operate the locks. dams and pumps, and so forth. It's a term just hanging out there without conveying a self-meaning, so to speak. In sum... THE CONTEXT OF THREE DECADES is going "Vanished" here on the Wikipedia. That means we aren't conveying the whole picture, and are doing any conveying unskillfully... SINS TO BE DAMNED FOR! <BSEG> (to me!) ~:)) or should that be ~8(> In any event, let's both think on it a day or two. Left alone, it still wouldn't be the worse title of an article page here by a long shot. Likely not even a contender for the top 100 worst! LOL // FrankB 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the confusion you have over the term is when it was first used to describe the system which was long before the Pennsylvania Railroad bought the system from the state in 1857. All of the various sources I have looked at indicate that this is the name by which the system was known when it became fully operational in 1834 and continued to be called until sold to the PRR. For further details I refer you to "The Pennsylvania Railroad Company: The Corporate, Financial and Construction History of Lines Owned, Operated and Controlled To December 31, 1945, Volume I The Pennsylvania Railroad Proper." Chapter: "The Main Line of Public Works" pp. 109-135. (Coverdale & Colpitts, Consulting Engineers, New York 1946).
The Act of May 16, 1857 that authorized its sale was entitled "An Act for the Sale of The Main Line of Public Works" and states in part: "Section 1. That it shall be the duty of the governor, within ten days after approving this act, to cause to be advertised daily until the day of sale, in one or more newspapers of extensive circulation, or published in the cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston, New York, and in the borough of Harrisburg, a notice that the Main Line of Public Works will be exposed to public sale at the Merchants' Exchange, or some other public place in the city of Philadelphia, on a day to be selected by him, not more than forty days after the passage of this act. ... Section 2. That at the time and place so selected, it shall be the duty of the governor to have offered at public sale the whole Main Line of Public Works, to wit: the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad; the canal from Columbia to the Junction at Duncan's Island; the Juniata canal from thence to Hollidaysburgh; the Allegheny Portage railroad, including the new road to avoid the inclined planes, and the canal from Johnstown to Pittsburgh, with all the property thereto appertaining, or in anywise connected therewith." Charle Dickens wrote a description of travel over the route in his book "American Notes" published in 1842. If these two articles were to ever be merged it seems to me that the "host" article would "The Main Line of Public Works" with the shorter "Pennsylvania Canal" article be appended to it as a subsection and not the other way around. Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow! You're serious about "All ... was known when it became fully operational in 1834 and continued to be called until sold to the PRR"... ???? How (under what 'entity name') were tickets issued? If you're sure that was it's operating name I cede the argument and humbly apologize for wasting your time. Me thinks it would have been the Pennsylvania Canal Commission or system, not that mouthful! I'm flabbergasted, but that's unpredictable Pennsylvania at it's best, I guess. // FrankB 02:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that the system as a whole was known as the Main Line of Public Works of Pennsylvania as an overall legal entity. The riding public bought their passenger tickets under the names of the various divisions (canals, railroads, and their branch lines) such as "Philadelphia & Columbia RR", "Allegheny Portage RR", "Pennsylvania Canal", etc. You can see a map of what the entire system looked like at the time of its sale to the PRR in 1857 here, and the schedule for the Phila & Columbia RR as it appeared in the American Railway Guide and Pocket Companion in 1851 here. Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer about this. Centpacrr (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no real confusion, once the source of the name is given as context in context. I am expecting and was focused on the cultural name, not the legal. Likewise one bought tickets on the CNJ, not the Lehigh and Susquehanna who leased them the trackage et. al., so business/cultural names were expected. We just need to write such so the distinction is clear in context to the casual passerby, or to someone who has followed a link that some 16 year old has added to an article sans context. We also need be careful with such articles to make sure component articles aren't hacked up and cut down skipping important historical context because someone figures such an article covers the matter. Some hyperlinks, out of period are or can be contextually deceptive, as I pointed out. In any event, good work. Thanks for the time. If you wouldn't mind taking an occasional historic railroad question, drop me an email at username=at=gmail.com. Best regards // FrankB 03:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't already have one, I would suggest that you invest in a copy of the 835-page Centennial History of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company published by the PRR in 1946. The American Book Exchange (ABE) site currently has 21 copies of it listed for sale starting at $25.
As for the Main Line of Public Works article, the only contributions I have ever made to it prior to the current discussion with you about merger and the origin of the name was to add an image of the Philadelphia and Columbia depot in Philadelphia to it last June 3rd so it is not really my article. (Because i had added that image is why your edit showed up on my watch list.) The reason I chimed in is that I live just a stone's throw from the Main Line grade and knew that the "Main Line of Public Works" was its correct historic name.
You can contact me about railroad history questions via email at either "centpacrr-at-comcast.net" or "BCC-at-CPRR.org". Among my many writings on my CPRR.org site that you may find of particular interest are this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. You can also find a fair number of my images of the Main Line grade between Narberth and Rosemont (just west of Philadelphia) among the over 300 of my railroad photographs available at the NERAIL photo archive here. Centpacrr (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I'll pick that one up. I'm afraid my RR history section is underpopulated comparative to other interests, despite the fact I'm overflowing seven bookcases as well as two half cases—I'd dropped the modeling interests for nearly a decade before I found Trainz and learning to run the software was easiest in limited time available just developing a few fictional/fantasy routes. Then there is always this timesink... I almost always have some article to get back to fixing up or one missing I feel needs at least stubbed in. That Canal Era article is a recent one, as well as several geographic articles that tie into the railfanning we did last summer. Trying to reference pics to places and historical researches discovered those shortcomings.
I took a quick look at the half the links, but am sure I'll be forwarding those links to my group. You have style! Brain is shutting down tonight so may browse instead of editing. There is one I should finish. I think I left a few paras half refactored with an interim save. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing tonight anyway-my eyes do this varying acuity-out of focus thing on occasion that is bad this evening, perhaps because I read a lot today.
On the RR questions, I'll link up by email but will be careful not to bother you much. Thanks for the time! // FrankB 05:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

PRR & P&CRR schedules[edit]

Pennsylvania Railroad, and Philadelphia & Columbia Railroad schedules, March, 1851 ==

Image of Pennsylvania Railroad, and Philadelphia & Columbia Railroad schedules, March, 1851, now available here. Centpacrr (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

  • And you rotated it too! Very good. Thanks my friend, installing it now! Got this notice as was just returning to edit that! LOL You not only have style, but have great timing too! // FrankB 03:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

New feature[edit]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. I recently became a New Page Patroller and I reviewed the new page.--The Cosmos Master (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Having my post to reinspect would have been helpful. At least a dup to check... "New Page Patroller" is new "Position" to someone contributing since 2004, You see. I asked why I was seeing some checkoff you made or something as a notices and on my watchlist. Just an old fart being curious. // FrankB 20:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[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.

Sayre Yard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Waverly, New York and Norfolk Southern Railroad
East Mauch Chunk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Norfolk Southern Railroad
Exeter, Pennsylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Breaker
Mountain Top Yard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Waverly, New York
Penobscot Knob (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hazleton
Susquehanna River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Potomac

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interpreter (computing), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Former British Nation listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Former British Nation. Since you had some involvement with the Former British Nation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DrKiernan (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PROJold[edit]

I can't quite figure out what this redirect was supposed to do. Is it still useful? John Vandenberg (chat) 13:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Intermural, intramural, etc.[edit]

A question has arisen at the Language reference desk, about this term "intermural" which you introduced an article several years ago.[1] Could you go to that ref desk, and clarify what "intermural" means in this case? Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Deliçay[edit]

Hi, I saw that in 2006 you had created Deli Çay River. Thanks. There is a Deli Çay in southern Turkey. But as far as I know it is not close to Syrian border. Maybe it would be best to define the geographical coordinates to disambiguate. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see I originated the article back in 2006 but damnifIknow what I was reading at the time that provided that general geographic description. Could have been non-text as well— a documentary on the History Channel or National Geographic or the Smithsonian Channel, etc.—perhaps something about Alexander the Great, or other battle references where the river played large. Life was simpler back before cable-TV when we only had three-to-five TV channels! (IMHO, Cable's ruined people, no one reads much anymore!)
IIRC, we were just then getting into citing sources better -- the whole 'tag ref, endtag ref' software was not existent or just written and in Beta testing. Having said that, I wouldn't read too much into a place name not matching a streams name. Obviously what is needed is a local scholar familiar with geo-historical place names and the whole river naming controversies to proceed. I'll dup this in the talk page, and see if the {{expert}} tags still work. Best regards // FrankB 14:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

This wiki-kitten is here to express my thanks for your edits. I see you have been absent on Wikipedia this year - we miss you! Hope to see you back here soon!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr, but these days the eyes keep getting worse and my reading and so mental stimulation has turned from literature to other interesting hobbies. My vision can blur out without warning in a mere 20 minutes forcing other activities. Hence me and Wikipedia will only see 'corrective' edits—no one really liked my 'copy edit the whole' changes much anyways. You can still email me... but even that I pay only infrequent attention outside work email accounts. The family news is all in Facebook these days.
Ironically (?) I was re-reading 1633 and/or 1634: The Baltic War about the time you posted this... testing out a way to take BAEN CD texts to the Kindle Paperwhite... Works fine, just copy over the Mobi file and or the rtf files. (I usually got the webscriptions in the later format for laptop reading.) // FrankB 14:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address one or more redirects you have created. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Wpcm"[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25#Template:Wpcm about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Answered at User talk:Nedim Ardoğa // FrankB

Makro[edit]

You may wish to comment here, especially if he responds to your message by blanking it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I did, the guy ought to be blocked for a week for stepping on a newbie like that. // FrankB 17:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A little birdie for you![edit]

Little Birdie Seen From Very Closely Up.jpg A little birdie for you!
(seen from very closely up) :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Anchor category[edit]

Hi, Fabartus – I recently noticed that, back in 2008, you included a caveat in a category you created that warns against usage of the category for anchors that are in or near section headers. Unfortunately, I didn't notice it in time and have tagged a lot of redirects with {{R to anchor}} when, according to that caveat, I should have used {{R to section}}. I'm perfectly willing to go back through the category and correct these errors and have begun doing so; however, I have met with a little resistance. So I thought I'd ask you to see how important you feel that caveat actually is. Is it crucial to exclude section-header anchors? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • OK, nice to be listened to. I'll Clarify matters here. Sorry for the confusion, User:Paine Ellsworth! // FrankB 05:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Your Welcome // FrankB 05:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Monospaced font may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • through the positioning gap. This also later meant that monospaced fonts need not be hand-typeset (since Gutenberg, using physical blocks} and electric motoriize cam driven auto typesetters could be manufactured. Monospace fonts being

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

    • Examination of Shows you're wrong Bracket Bot. You seem unable to handle two parenthesized quantities inside the same sentence. Words and phrases are different too! // FrankB 21:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion[edit]

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion[edit]

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPPlist listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPPlist. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WPPlist redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Anaconda Project for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Anaconda Project is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anaconda Project until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Grantville Gazette II for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grantville Gazette II is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grantville Gazette II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of 1632 characters for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of 1632 characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1632 characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:R from template listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from template. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from template redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fabartus. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
Message added 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

McDoobAU93 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

List balderdash[edit]

I'd like to point you to Talk:List (abstract data type)#Original research, and a proposal to clean it up, where I explain why the current content of List (abstract data type) is an original synthesis, or rather a mix-up of concepts (list, linked list, string, array). If, as you claim, "any intro to CS textbook" can be used to verify the article's content, then please cite at least one. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, reply is (or soon will be) here. Be well // FrankB 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to RGB color model 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:
  • This indirect scheme restricts the number of available colors in an image CLUT (typically 256-cubed (8 bits with values of 0&ndash;255), although each color in the RGB24 CLUT
  • to [[24-bit]]s of information for each pixel: 8-bit per component multiplied by three components (see the [[RGB color model#Digital representations|Digital representations]] section below (24bits =

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of color palettes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CGA. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)