Jump to content

User:Djflem/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Djflem

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.57.99.7 (talk) at 21:01, 18 June 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

We're not talking about "drawing attention to mistakes", and you know it. I welcome people politely pointing out mistakes, as it says at the top of my user page. We're talking about accusing someone of "bad faith" edits, without explaining how that conclusion is arrived at to the exclusion of other explanations, accusing them of deception, and so forth. That has nothing to do with "drawing attention to mistakes", and is a violation of WP:AGF/WP:Civility/WP:NPA, which I notice you haven't refuted. Don't try this little bait-and-switch with me, because I'm not fooled by it. Pointing out that falsely accusing someone of bad faith or deception, without explaining how you have concluded this to the exclusion of other explanations, violates these policies is not an "offense", so your false cries of What exactly is uncivil or cryptic??? only show that you're stonewalling. I have no idea what you're referring to regarding population, and I'm not going to go digging through the edit history in order to understand a point that you're trying to make. The fact remains that using diffs to explain your point to others is standard practice, yet you continue to refuse to provide one so that I can understand what you're talking about. If I made an edit in error, then that's all it was. Your self-righteous preference for pretending that you know for a fact that it was "deception" on my part, and refusal to provide a diff (which should be easy for you, since you obviously already looked through the edit history), illustrates your inability to resolve disputes peacefully. I may have been in error about the name of the parade, but references are not needed for comments in edit summaries, as I never mentioned Newark in the article itself. But had I thought that the matter would've continued past that point when I first mentioned it, I would've provided one. We're not talking about whether the parade refs have information "I like". We're talking about whether they have the information you've been claiming they have. In fact, they don't, as none of them say that people come to Union City for the parade. But if you can actually refute this point, then do so. Otherwise, you can admit that you were in error on this point, just as I can admit that I may have been wrong about the parade's name. Engaging in non sequitur by pretending that the issue is whether there is information "I like" is not a substitute for this. As for collaboration, again, I've been trying to initiate discussions with you, asking for elaborations on your assertions, and you've been stonewalling, pretending that everyone else has to follow your dictatorial pronouncements, indicating that you don't need to talk or provide explanation or sources for your edits to the article, while hypocritically accusing me for not providing sources for things in edit summaries, and have leveled baseless accusations against me. The only one not collaborating, therefore, is you. The fact is, you cannot illustrate your accusation of intent on my part to the exclusion of mere error, even though I've asked you to do so. Your accusation is arbitrary, and you can't answer this point, so you ignore this flaw by merely stating the accusation over and over, in the hope that merely doing so will be a substitute for evidence. It isn't. If I made some edit regarding population in error, then that's all it was. If you can prove otherwise, instead of just chickening out of answering this question, then do so. As for mistakes, I've admitted errors on my part lots of times, and did so already regarding the name of the parade, and the (possible, assuming you're correct) error about the population error. So your assertion that I cannot admit to my errors is another arbitrary and knowing lie on your part. None of this has to do with "politics", unless you're using some made-up definition of that word. Nightscream (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not about "drawing attention to mistakes", but the way you mishandle edits at the same time seem to feel comfortable rudely criticise others, pointing out policies that you yourself don't follow, and make threats to disturb my work on Wikipedia, and generally seem to wish to engage me in some sort of backstage wiki intrigue and consume time there rather than the place it really counts: Front and Center for the reader who doesn't give a hoot about how NIghtscream's or my interpretion of civility.

But I am glad you admit to making mistakes, the two in discussion big whoppers and quite surprising for some who portends to to so well-versed in Wikipedia procedure. (Are you an administrator?) The first (the dates place between 01-30-2010 and 02-011-2010, and yes you can find them I'm sure) by switching a reference w/o drawing attention to it and seriously comprising the integrity of the article. The 2nd of a well-referenced entry which was reverted 4 times by you w/o investigation and with claims, disrupting another editor's work. I'd call that uncivil as well as incompetent, especially since they were not accompanied by any inquiry on the talk page or my page, which would seem like the start of an edit war and bad faith to me. The appropriate response and procedure, as I assume you know, would have been to provide a superior reference or make an inquiring to the editor who's work you were tampering with or open up a discussion, which you say you are so willing to have. You did none of those things: You just reverted edits and were snide about it. (as a courtesy, as well as to back up your claim would you please send me a copy of the Newark parade reference you say is available)
With regard to disucussion please explain your behaviour regarding UC colonial history. There was no response to the invitation on the UC talk page to do furhter research to find information specific to Union City/North Hudson to include in the early history section. I left the article page with the misinformation on it for two days and then made a correction which solicited a tesonse from you. There was no demonstration of curiousity on your part, and no actual discussion as in " Oh yeah, I see what you mean that my entry was full of mistakes, thanks for tipping me off. Do you have some other resources? Where do you think we can find more info about UC in the colonial era? Thanks for fixing the disam on Union Township I missed." NO it was a defensive/accusatorial stance in which you wished me to explain an edit which you didn't like and I hadn't requested your approval to make. Only then was there some response from you, and that was to challenge me. I suppose, or hope, you have subsequently come to the conclusion that indeed the information you had posted was generally wrong and hope that you would agree that it was best for it to be removed asap to maintain the article's integrity. Or did you wish to have it stay there while you sorted out what you wanted to include. Should I have been more patient with you? Was that uncivil of me? I don't expect a thanks for cleaning up the mess you posted, but don't you think it is reasonable to expect another editor to take the time to investigate and then make a posting w/refs if or s/he genuinely believes he is making a viable contribution, epecially when there overwhelming evidence that the existing information of the article page is wrong. Why in your interpretation is that bad? Is that not the essence of the one Wiki policy you haven't quoted: BOLD? Where does it say that I have to wait for Nightscream to agree with me b4 making an edit that removes blemishes from the page and wait for him to get his head around the subject matter (hopefully preparing himself to actually have a real discussion about the article, which he did not do, and not one about Union City's apparently unqualified historian cited in reference not available to verify)? So I will ask you now, what have you learned and what would you like to include in the early history section that you feel is missing? Or would you like to continue harping on accusations about my behaviour when it is clear that yours has certainly been less than stunning?80.57.99.7 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)



Transportation

The confluence of roads and railways of the Northeastern U.S. megalopolis and Northeast Corridor passing through Hudson County make it one of the Northeast's major transportation crossroads and provide access to an extensive network of interstate highways, state freeways and toll roads, and vehicular water crossings. Many long distance trains and buses pass through the county, though Amtrak and the major national bus companies – Greyhound Lines and Trailways – do not provide service within it. There many local, intrastate, and Manhattan-bound bus routes, an expanding light rail system, ferries traversing the Hudson, and commuter trains to North Jersey, the Jersey Shore, and Trenton. Much of the rail, surface transit, and ferry system is oriented to commuters traveling to Newark, lower and midtown Manhattan, and the Hudson Waterfront. Public transportation is operated by a variety of public and private corporations, notably New Jersey Transit, NY Waterway, and The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees most of the New York metropolitan area's seaports and airports.

Hubs

Hoboken Terminal, Bergenline Avenue at 32nd Street, 48th Street, and Nungessers in North Hudson, and Journal Square Transportation Center and Exchange Place in Jersey City are major public transportation hubs. The Port Authority Bus Terminal and Penn Station in midtown Manhattan, the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, and Newark Penn Station also play important roles within the county's transportation network. Secaucus Junction provides access to eight commuter rail lines.

Rail

Bergenline Station at 49th Street between Bergenline Avenue and Kennedy Boulevard at the border of Union City, West New York and North Bergen
Exchange Place

Water

CRRNJ Terminal in Liberty State Park, Ellis Island and Statue of Liberty ferry slips in foreground.

Road and surface

Major highways include New Jersey Routes 3, 7, 139, 185, 440, 495, Interstates 78, 95, and 280, and U.S. Routes 1 and 9, as well as the New Jersey Turnpike and the Pulaski Skyway. Automobile access to New York City is available through the Lincoln Tunnel (via Weehawken to midtown Manhattan) and the Holland Tunnel (via Jersey City to lower Manhattan), and over the Bayonne Bridge to Staten Island. County Route 501 runs the length of Hudson as Kennedy Boulevard.

New Jersey Transit bus routes 120 -129 provide service within Hudson and to Manhattan. New Jersey Transit bus routes 1-89 provide service within the county and to points in North Jersey. Additionally, private bus companies, some of which operate dollar vans (mini-buses or carritos) augment the state agency's surface transport.

Air

Most airports which serve Hudson County are operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey


  1. ^ a b HBLR/Meadowlands Rail map
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Djflem/Sandbox&oldid=368868238"