User talk:Epicgenius

This is Epicgenius's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83: 7 days

Archives

Archive links by month

Other talk pages:

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Very important userboxes

MORE

This user has more userboxes.

This user has an alternative account named Kylo Ren.

END

This user has no more userboxes.

Top | Talk (new message) | User page | Contribs | User log

New Disability and Companies delsort categories

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Program for Action

On 7 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Program for Action, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Program for Action, a transportation proposal in New York City, was drastically truncated in the 1970s due to a lack of funds? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Program for Action. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Central Terminal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barbershop and Salon (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) 10:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

http://www.businessoffashion.com/community/companies/bergdorf-goodman is a journal and an acceptable source. Please stop being disruptive. Brad90210

@Brad90210: Please consult the teahouse or help desk if you have any questions on reliable sources. I don't believe that the link is reliable under policy. epic genius (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Staten Island Railway

SIR S line

Can you possibly help me fix the stupid s line template for the SIR to have the link for South Beach Branch, North Shore Branch and Mount Loretto Spur pages go to the pages I created for them and not the section on the Staten Island Railway page. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing SIR Articles

Hi, could you assess the North Shore, Travis and South Beach pages when you have a chance? Thanks.

Reply

@Kew Gardens 613: Sure, I'd be glad to help with both of the above. epic genius (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

In reverting carte blanche because you did not like our inline and section tags, you REVERTED CLEAR PLAGIARSIM. I and others are working on the bad sourcing of various sections. There is no tag-bombing, but a selective use of tags inline, to mark sections as we work our way through sections to check sources and remediate inaccurate souring. PLEASE TO NOT DO MASSIVE REVERTS. The material from two principle sources was used cut and paste. If you waste more of our time with mass reversions, I will mark the article as copypaste, and take it up to top Admins.

Now, out of respect I am going, one by one, to return your helpful edits. Please do the hard work and be similarly respectful in your edits. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here, [1], before thinking of reverting hours of hard sourcing and text clarification work. The sections referred to are plagiarized and/or misuse sources. Do selective diffs to see what was changed before doing another revert based on appearances. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult the two good sources listed in "Further reading" at the Brighton Beac article. These are currently underused — they can likely be used to (i) correct mistaken or made-up factual text, and/or (ii) to provide inline citations for many of the inline citation tags where the content is accurate. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: Yeah, I was working on fixing the article. It is a mess, but adding tons of tags makes it hard for the reader. I will also try to find the good sources... epic genius (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on the list of deadlinks and bare URLs. Help me? Three done. By the way, the tags are intended temporary, and they let me know, paragraph by paragraph by paragraph, section by section, what text and sources have been checked. BB deserves a GA, eventually. I suppose I could have put in an "Under construction" tag. Thanks for patience. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: Sure, I will help. I think that if that was your purpose, maybe a hidden comment would have helped, like this:  and you could have put {{refimprove}} on it. I'm sorry if I was rude to you earlier, but I felt that this was a real case of tag bombing, especially since you'd stopped editing for the day. epic genius (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Couple of things. First, there is a current discrepancy between the 2007 lede-cited population numbers and the 2010 census numbers appearing in the article, and this needs to be rectified, quickly. (I won't put discrepancy tags, just leave it to you to sort.) Note, the census is the formal best data, and the large discrepancies are likely not date-associated, but rather, differences in boundaries used by the two sources. Hence, a careful look is in order, with the census winning the day if the origin of the discrepancy cannot be identified.

Extended content

Second, I would suggest that the statements that appear in the lede that are not duplicated in the main body, be duplicated in the main body, and that citations be moved from the lede to the main body. In my experience, allowing citations in the lede moves the lede away from being a good summary, and toward being a dumping ground for newly discovered citations and facts. The lede should summarize the article, not say things the article does not (WP policy). So, move anything in the lede that is not said in the body, into the body, with the citations, and leave the lede short, succinct, and clear (with citations below). My view and recommendation.

Third, I am a stickler for good sources. If you look to my User page, I quote from the WP policies and guidelines on this matter. WP calls for published sources, and says those sources with most careful editorial review are most desired. (Whether we concur or not, this is what the WP policies and guidelines say.) In this regard—by way of example, for this article—the following citation:

* Stanton, Jeffrey (1997). "Coney Island - Luxury Hotels". Coney Island History Site. Retrieved 12 November 2015.

…is a poor source. Why? Well, in its favour, it is part of a larger site, and it does name an author. However, on reading, it is clear it is little better than a self-published blog or other self-published material (WP differentiating between blogs at major news orgs like the NYT, and self-published works at any-old blog hosting site). Why do I say this? If you read two paragraphs in, you will see typographical errors (mis-spellings, etc.), as well as stylistic indications that there is a loose view of rigour regarding the veracity of their information (look for a hotel name followed by "??"). This is simply not good, acceptable encyclopedic sourcing.

Fourth, we have a different perspective on tags, you and I, and I am thankful we have managed nevertheless to work together. The fact that there are so few tags appearing in Wikipedia, despite the fact that when we have graded our articles we have given most C or worse grades, means that there is a bias here toward making things appear fine, even when they are not.

As an educator, I cannot share that bias. I believe my students deserve an honest assessment of the quality of what they were reading. How long had the opening two paragraphs of the historical sections been in place, plagiarized as they were? The first person noticing the identical nature of the text between the source and WP should have tagged it. That tag should have remained until someone came along, as I did, and converted the plagiarised material into quotations. If those quotations were overly long, then a tag should have been left in place indicating over-long quotations, until such time that you came a long to do a proper paraphrase. That is to say, the status quo should have tags to alert editors that work is needed, and when so much work is needed it cannot possibly be done in one session, or even one week, then tags should remain in place so that readers have an honest appraisal of the status of the article's content. Never, never (in my book) should poor content (unsourced content, misattributed content, etc.) be allowed to appear "OK". If you want one explanation for my adding the many inline ^{[citation needed]} tags, it was that I found plagiarism in the opening paragraphs of an early section. Much in the same way, when a child lies to a parent, it changes the conversation following, my trust in the earlier editors of this content dropped very low, once early plagiarism was found. The discrepancies in population, while not as egregious, also point to editorial sloppiness. Veracity is important! (And infinitely more important than a maintained appearance of "all good".)

Fifth and finally, besides being a stickler for WP:VERIFY, I am the same for "no WP:OR in articles." A single clear (if minor) example of this is whether the naming of Brighton Beach was given to a group of businessmen as a result of a contest. The article has said so in the past, and it may indeed be true. But that fact does not appear in the citation affixed to that sentence means to allow this "fact" to remain is to accept WP:OR. Hence, I removed the phrase, and look to have it added back only when it can be sourced.

Bottom line, I realize that I am, as a stickler for rigour, and as an academic, I am in a minority here, with regard to the site's regular editorial practices. But my convictions align well with (i) WP policies, (ii) academic standards for doing honest academic work, and (iii) enough fellow editors, seeking to create good, solid, long-lasting encyclopedic content, that I will at times fight for these principles.

Apologies if I was at all obnoxious in my pressing forward with them. In close, I would just say I have put a couple of reasonably good sources (esp. the encyclopedia, but also the Williams article, after that) into the "Further reading" section. I would look to those to draw some further citations to replace ^{[citation needed]} inline tags, but also to check remaining text. For instance, I still think dubious the statement that "In 1868, William A. Engeman built a resort in the area." which is sourced to the Stanton piece. I think the history is more likely accurate as being represented by saying that he purchased land with the intent to develop it, and with the later commitment to create the first, anchoring institution (the hotel), the reality of a resort began to materialize. But my opinion is not key. What do the best sources say?

P.S. WIll likely go back to editing from IP on this, since you now know me.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to use Luxury Hotels as a place holder until I found a better reference. I can tell it is not reliable. I will find better sources a little later, when I am not editing with a tablet. epic genius (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the Demographics numbers were bungled -- they do not come from the one source appearing in the paragraph. In short, the US Census numbers are without source at this point. For population, I went with the combined numbers in the cited report, which itself references the census. But those numbers are for BB and Coney Island, combined, and so are higher (>110,000). This number now appears in the lede, infobox, and Demographics section (until another source can be found). Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Fordham Plaza, Bronx

Hello! Your submission of Fordham Plaza, Bronx at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coney Island 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:

of the [[Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad]] (the present-day [[IND Culver Line]])<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9502E2D71F3DE633A25750C1A9619C946797D6CF</ref> had

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Unreferenced

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Unreferenced. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 12 November

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

On the Coney Island page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine for u!

		Sunshine!
		Hello Epicgenius! Bhootrina (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding `{{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}}` to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bhootrina (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]