Jump to content

User talk:Acps110

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acps110 (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 16 June 2012 (→‎5 WTC Construction: not me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

You are being complained about

Just a courtesy note that the IP editor who was commenting here has now taken the "issue" to Tide rolls user page. QU TalkQu 21:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-platform interchange and overpass

Excuse me and hello.

If a station provides cross-platform interchange, it allows cross-platform transfer between all trains running in the same direction (southbound to southbound etc.). At the Prospect Park station only the northbound B and Q allow cross-platform transfer to or from the S, while the southbound B and Q don't, because the S stops at the northbound platform only.


Vcohen (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Park is no different from any other cross-platform interchange in the system. An overpass is implied. There are many "wrong-way" transfers made every day. For example, a passenger boarding a Manhattan-bound C train on the Fulton Street line and transferring to a Queens-bound G train at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts towards Long Island City. Or, someone boarding a downtown B train on Central Park West and transferring to a Queens-bound E train at 7th Ave. There must be some of that at Queensboro Plaza, with inbound riders on one line transferring to the outbound side of the other line. Wrong way transfers are also used all the time when all trains in one direction are running express. To get to the right station you have to go past it to the next express stop and transfer to a local going the other way.
I understand what you are saying about a transfer from a southbound S to a southbound B or Q requiring a crossover via the mezzanine. The are many other places where that happens throughout the system. Another example would be a weekend southbound J rider transferring to a Brooklyn-bound 4 to continue southbound. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, all these examples do exist. However, they are not called cross-platform interchange. Each station with cross-platform interchange (see the first 4 layouts above) strictly has two directions and two platforms that a passenger can cross to take a train in the same direction (within the station the direction is the same, after exiting the station trains take different routes). Prospect Park has only one. Vcohen (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's simplify the problem. Each one of the other 4 stations has two platforms that a passenger can cross to change the train. Prospect Park has only one, for northbound trips only. That's what I want to say. Vcohen (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Prospect Park has four tracks in service and two island platforms, just like most of the express stations throughout the system. The southbound local track is seldom used, but it is still there and in service just like the other three tracks. Both platforms offer a cross-platform interchange. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that. I'll try to explain myself.
The article about the station says, "The Franklin Avenue Shuttle terminates on the northbound local track while the southbound one is not normally used in revenue service." Also the infobox says, "Tracks: 4 (3 in regular service)." These two pieces of information are coordinated with each other (although they don't fully match reality).
What you are saying now belongs to another model of reality and contradicts the previous one. Things written in an encyclopedia have to be all coordinated, don't they? Vcohen (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't contradict the definition of a cross-platform interchange. Regardless of normal usage, the track configuration still allows cross-platform interchanges. Examples of other stations like this are not limited to... 62nd Street (BMT West End Line) and Pelham Parkway (IRT Dyre Avenue Line). Neither line has normal express service, but track and platform configuration still allows for cross-platform interchange, when trains are re-routed. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! OK. Thank you. Vcohen (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix numbering

Thanks--I wonder if I'll ever learn. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. A most unusual RfA; quite interesting to watch it unfold. I know you'll do just fine with learning how to be an admin. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP

I wouldn't be surprised if he returned, he has always had a grudge against you and against me. One thing it would prove though is that he hasn't changed a single bit. Maybe just a bit more grammar used now.--iGeMiNix 21:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(IG, I noticed that your talk page says you're retired, so I hope you see this here.) I blocked the IP because it's obvious to me that it's the same person as is behind 24..173 and NYCSlover. If either of you happens to see another IP or new account editing similarly, be sure to drop me a note and I'll take care of it. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP

There's another IP who has been editing a lot of Montauk Branch and Babylon Branch related articles. You reverted a sentence about one of the trains which you claimed was unsourced. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe this was the source he or she was relying on for the info. ----DanTD (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki isn't a timetable though, regardless if it was correct or not, sourced or unsourced, it is trival information at best. If that was added, you might as well go add about how there are rush hour N and Q trains terminating at Times Square and 57th then.--iGeMiNix 19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that. But the issue in this case is the source. I'm not suggesting that the IP was right about adding it to the article. ----DanTD (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the inserting editor to support their claims by citing sources. Also, they were writing in CamelCase without proper punctuation. Per WP:NOTTRAVEL, I agree with IGeMiNix too. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulton Street Transit Center + World Trade Center Transportation Hub

Excuse me, I'm here with a new set of questions.

1. The Fulton Street (New York City Subway) complex:

2. The Chambers Street – World Trade Center / Park Place (New York City Subway) complex:

3. One single station:

Question 1. Which stations are included in the World Trade Center Transportation Hub? There is no article dedicated to it. I guess that the answer is 2+3.

Question 2. Which stations are included in the Fulton Street Transit Center? I guess that the answer is 1+2+3, but the "+" between the 1 and 2 is out-of-system. Vcohen (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The World Trade Center Transportation Hub doesn't exist yet. When it is completed, it will include Chambers Street – World Trade Center (A, ​C, and ​E trains); Park Place (2 and ​3 trains); World Trade Center (PATH station) (NWK – WTC, HOB – WTC trains); Cortlandt Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) (1 train) and Cortlandt Street (BMT Broadway Line) (N, ​R, and ​W trains). The WTC transportation hub article currently redirects to the PATH station's article.
  2. The Fulton Street Transit Center includes all of the existing Fulton Street stations, but does NOT include Seaport (IND Second Avenue Line) at the corner of Fulton and Water Streets.
The Dey Street Passageway is the connector between the two otherwise unconnected complexes. It is unclear if transfers between subway stations at the WTC hub will be free or outside of fare control. They could be free AND outside of fare control, by requiring people to swipe their MetroCards to get out of one station (encoding a limited transfer, good only for 10 minutes and only at turnstiles of the other stations in the complex), and then swipe back in at the next. I hope that the MTA will attempt some form of renaming to unify the stations there.
Here's an animation of what it might look like to enter at Fulton Street and Broadway, go through the Dey Street Passageway into the WTC hub and continue across towards the World Financial Center on the other side of West Street (from the Port Authority's website). Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One additional thing to point out... The Fulton Street Transit Center upgrade is an MTA project, the WTC hub is a Port Authority project. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have to add:
4. One single station:
Now, if I understand correctly:
  • The WTC hub is 2+3+4, and your "unclear" refers to it.
  • The Fulton Street Center will only include the existing complex 1.
  • The Dey Street Passageway will be between 1 and 2 and certainly out-of-system.
Am I right? Vcohen (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost right. WTC hub is 2+3+4 + World Trade Center (PATH station). The rest you have right. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I factor out the PATH stations, because I only deal with the subway.
Now I think I have a list of things that we should fix.
Am I right this time? Vcohen (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even the MTA seems to be confused about their own system. This page on the MTA's website shows the E, N and R trains listed on it which can't be right if the Dey Street Passageway is out of system. This NY Times animation from 2008 shows the Dey Street Passageway as in-system, and a ramp from the southbound Cortlandt Street (BMT) platform to the World Trade Center (E) platform. I haven't seen any evidence of that ramp being built. I think we should probably leave things as they are until the Dey Street Passageway opens in November. Once the official map is updated (depicting the Dey Street Passageway), we will have a primary source that shows what is and isn't part of the Fulton Street Transit Center.
As to the connections at WTC (PATH station), WP is not a travel guide. It only shows what NYCS services are available there currently. There is no reason to show how things connect, especially since it will probably change many times before construction is complete. We still don't have a re-opening date for the Cortlandt St (IRT) station, so it's still premature to include that station. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you.
By the way, the MTA's presentation is anyway wrong, since the E at WTC is connected to the A and C at Chambers St and to the 2 and 3 at Park Pl, so it's impossible that the WTC station is included in a complex and Chambers St + Park Pl are not. They seem to have omitted them because these trains are already included at Fulton St, it's correct concerning trains, but it isn't correct concerning stations. Vcohen (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before this section goes to the archive... I've found something strange. [1] [2] It looks like a passageway connecting the entrances of the Fulton Street complex and the BMT Cortlandt Street station. What is this? Vcohen (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like it's related to the MTA. It looks like a service drive for trucks to unload into the basement of that building or an entrance to an underground parking garage. Those bollards look like they are retractable. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Vcohen (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Acps, please visit WP:ANI when you have a moment, section "Jimbo1qaz"--I have a question for you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who serves whom?

Excuse me, one question more. In this article there are two sentences:

  1. Grand Central – 42nd Street is a major station complex... It serves trains...
  2. The complex is served by... trains...

Does a station serve trains? Do trains serve a station? Is it OK that two such sentences appear almost side-by-side? Vcohen (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both are acceptable. Grand Central serves as platforms for the trains to stop at. The trains serve Grand Central by stopping there. Those sentences are slightly different. The first refers to the Lines the station serves. The second lists all trains (regardless of line) that stop there. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of language and style, is it OK to use both side-by-side? Vcohen (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The WP:LEAD is written as a summary of the rest of the article. It is perfectly OK to list the lines served and nearby also list the trains serving the station. The trains is not even a sentence, but a list. I appreciate your edits to station complexes to convert the trains in the lead to a list. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Vcohen (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:IPad (3rd generation)

Hi, I'm wondering why you chose to remove/revert several of my recent edits. I am a new editor here so I would like to understand your reasoning for this. (If possible, if you could show me some relevant policy). Thanks. YumOooze (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it because you thought that I was removing arguments written by others? The arguments I was altering were completely written by me. I fully understand if this was the case though. YumOooze (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate for you to change your arguments in the midst of a move discussion, with no reference to what it said before. If you want to change your arguments, strike out the part you want to change, and make a correction below it. You have been hounding the discussion in an attempt to sway the consensus in your favor. That hasn't worked and has irritated several of the participants, myself included. The discussion has run its standard seven days, and now it's time to close the request as unsuccessful. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your answer which I will remember for next time. However, I would have preferred if you explained your edits in your edit summary, and avoided making false accusations (which I presume was a mistake, but I am doubtful because the diffs you provided show that you are aware that I was not modifying anyone else's content). Also, removing my response to your comments was clearly a bigger violation of guidelines than anything I did. YumOooze (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor's Staircase did not lead to the station

Exactly. I didn't say it did. I even gave a link: [3] [4]

"The stair ruins, soon to be moved, contain the Vesey Street entrance to the former Cortlandt Street station." That is, the entrance used to be in the side facade of the concrete block under the staircase. Certainly not over the steps. Could you try to fix my statement to make it clearer? Vcohen (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is a photo made before 9/11: [5]. I don't underwrite that the signboard reads "Cortlandt Street", but the red is clear enough. Vcohen (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I'll try to fix it myself. Vcohen (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking hard over the last few days how to better word where the entrance was. I think the part that confused me was the word "contains". The entrance was actually "under" the staircase. I've re-worded it and re-inserted it into the article. See what you think. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot a lot. I don't insist on any certain wording. I only wanted two things: to make sure that I don't misunderstand anything and to add this information to the article. Vcohen (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct stations

Unfortunately, I cannot add a category to a separate section of an article. I mean this section. We have a list of defunct stations and a list of defunct lines, IMHO they logically belong to the same category. Vcohen (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is feature creep. There is nothing in List of New York City Subway lines that refers to any defunct stations. Every station in the section you referred to is an active/in-service station. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I hope my new edit is correct. Vcohen (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

I don't want to edit your user page, but it seems to have a typo. In the lead you say "an productive" instead of "a productive". I think it was "an experienced" and the word "productive" was added later. Vcohen (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed – Thanks, Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pelham

Can you please explain what part of WP:DAB you think justifies those hatnotes? The articles are clearly disambiguated by the year in the titles. There is no chance of people landing on one film's page looking for another, as all ambiguous names point to a disambiguation page. WP:DAB is very clear that hatnotes on fully disambiguated pages are not needed. "There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there from within Wikipedia would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to add a link to Solaris (novel) (but not, say, Solaris (operating system)) to its "See also" section." Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming way too much about a reader who may know nothing about the topic. We have four similarly named articles about four different but related things. Per WP:SIMILAR, these articles, which differ only in spelling and the parenthetical at the end, have hatnotes linking to a dab page, to make sure that the reader is on the right article. Just because there are no ambiguous links on Wikipedia doesn't mean that they may not be ambiguous elsewhere on the Internet. A reader coming from an external link could easily land on the wrong article and not know about the other articles on the same topic. WP:RELATED also applies to this case... This guideline does not discourage the use of disambiguation hatnotes in a situation where separate topics are related, but could nonetheless be referred to by the same title and would thus qualify for disambiguation, such as a book and its film adaptation.
In other words, the hatnotes are not there for editors, they are there for readers who may or may not know anything about the topic and its four articles. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official maps

I know that our main source for the needs of station naming is the PDF map. The GIF map on the same site is not. Does this make it less official? When we say "official maps", we mean at least all the maps that can be found on the MTA's site.

Note that they updated the Barclays Center station on the GIF map before the PDF one. Also note that we updated the articles following the GIF map. Vcohen (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There can only be one official map. The PDF is the same as the printed map. This page is an extremely simplified version. The web page is often updated sooner than the official map, and it includes info that will appear on the next map. I updated the ADA status of two stations, and Legendary Ranger updated the name of the Atlantic Avenue complex based on the fact that the next map will show those changes. So, no, I would say the web page is not the official map, but I'm not opposed to the recent changes that have happened because the web page was updated sooner than the official map. Also, the official map takes precedence over any other conflicting info from the MTA. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now I have two questions.
  1. Where can I read that the PDF is the only official map? (I need this for myself only, not to edit anything just now.)
  2. What kind of changes may be done following changes on the web page and what kind must not be done? Vcohen (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the naming convention has considerable discussion on how the PDF became the established consensus. I typically like to wait until the new version of the PDF comes out become making changes, but I was annoyed by the delay. If you notice something on the web page that has changed and aren't sure if you should be bold, just ask a question on the project talk page. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll wait. (There is another article that I've changed, undo it too if you wish.)
However, my question is about "official maps" in terms of the MTA, not of Wikipedia and/or our project. When we say something like "all official maps are blah-blah-blah" and there is one map that is not, then we have to change "all" to "some" - but only if that one map is really official. Therefore I want to know which maps are considered official and which are not (and where I can read about this). Vcohen (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. On the talk page of the naming convention there is only one paragraph (by Marc Shepherd) that mentions the PDF: For instance, on the MTA website, there is an interactive subway map and a PDF map. The interactive map has "42nd Street – Grand Central," and the PDF has "Grand Central – 42nd Street." I don't think it matters very much which one we choose. Even if we choose one map to be "more equal than others", a usual reader still sees all these maps as equally official, and the statement "all official maps include the SIR" is already false. Vcohen (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about just any map from the MTA, but THE official system map. The MTA prints lots of maps that include subway information but not the SIR, however none of these maps are the official map. Just because a map comes from the MTA does not make it the official map. All of the official system maps from the MTA have included the SIR since 1998. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me that an internal decision of Wikipedia's editors can make a map official. Wikipedia is not a source, neither are its talk pages. Vcohen (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Here they say that the PDF is just another format of the same map. Give me please a source that disproves that. Vcohen (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from Apple-related articles

Please stop vandalising the Apple articles, if you have an issue with Jonathan Ive the designer of these products please discuss it in talk history don't just delete entries. Twobells (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't vandalising the article, the burden is with you to source the claim that you have added in the articles. You failed to do that, reverting unsourced claims in any article is a basic right given to any editor who doubts the accuracy of the content. Your additions to the iPad 2 have been removed, feel free to include your claims after locating and citing a source YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twobells, we have been through this before. Jonathan Ive didn't design any of the products you think he did. He may have been a part of a team of folks at Apple who designed these products. Unsourced additions can be removed from Wikipedia by any editor. That's all I was doing. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R179 subway cars

Heres my source of Information about the R179 subway cars, that ALSKAW has put in a protest about same.

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/24651-bombardier-r179-b-division-discussion/page__st__600

Feel free to ask me anything about the MTA

Thank You.

Sincerely,

Joseph Lee jlee39@verizon.net or <redacted>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.73.202 (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing that; This is the first I'm hearing about a protest. Unfortunately, message boards aren't reliable sources, and can't be used here on Wikipedia. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5 WTC Construction

I noticed that you changed the status of the 5 WTC building to "under construction." To the best of my knowledge, this is not true, and 5 WTC is a stale proposal. Construction updates from LMCCC refer to the location as the former 130 Liberty Site, and current construction updates make no reference to an actual office building. Instead, the below ground portion, currently referred to as the "South Bathtub" will be the site of the Vehicle Security Center, targeted for completion in 2014. The VSC will be capped by a "Liberty Street Park" (currently in the design phase) and the rebuilt St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. If you can post an up-to-date or current source showing that the construction at the South Bathtub is for an actual office building, I will be happy to incorporate it into the article. WasAPasserBy (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken; that wasn't me. I don't know what you are talking about. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acps110&oldid=497919970"