User talk:Epicgenius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page was last changed by Cirt (talk, contribs) on Friday 22:25:12 October 9, 2015 (UTC).

CLICK HERE CLICK HERE AND WASTE YOUR TIME  • other userpage (for most of the year) • 'boxes • TALK • talk archive • CONTRIBUTIONS • email • logs and stuff

Purge • Watch
  1. ^ I do have a life, so I will be here somewhat infrequently.
  2. ^ In New York City

en This user is a native speaker of English.
MORE This user has more userboxes.
END This user has no more userboxes.
e·h·w·Clipboard.svg To-do for Epicgenius:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SAS 1972 tunnel.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:SAS 1972 tunnel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my talk page (about this file)[edit]

No worries. In fact, for me, doing work in the "File:" namespace is a new field for me altogether, but I hope that I'm doing "okay". :) Anyways, I'd still worry that the file's placement in Second Avenue Subway since its placement in that article was actually why I placed the tag, given that it is rather unclear by its placement location what its purpose is to illustrate to readers that cannot be sufficiently represented by text (specifically WP:NFCCP point 8, and WP:NFCI point 9 are my main concerns.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: The point of the image in that article, actually, is to show what the tunnel segments look like, since there aren't any reliable sources that describe that tunnel in detail. It's described as simply a "tunnel". With the image, you can see that there are beams in the walls and that the walls are flat (as opposed to round) for example. Epic Genius (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Why U Undo My Edits to Panphobia?![edit]

I'm not making joke edits. I'm seriously surprised at how someone can be afraid of everything, so I'm making fun of the phobia itself because, how to panphobes even live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydra Virus (talkcontribs) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hydra Virus: I'm also surprised about the phobia itself, and I can't believe that even exists. However, Wikipedia is not the place for opinions like this. Everything has to be absolutely 99.99999...% unbiased. I don't like it either, but well. Face-sad.svg
However, if there is proof that a lot of people are surprised about the existence of panphobes, you can add a statement saying so, as well as a reliable source to support it. Epic Genius (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hydra Virus In addition to what Epic Genius noted above, we are not interested in your personal observations, quips, queries, ruminations, musings, etc. Statements like "and we don't know how these people even live" are completely useless from an academic perspective. Just because you don't understand something doesn't grant you license to wonder aloud in an academic article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You know what? F*CK PANPHOBES!!!! I can talk sh*t about them if I want! This place is a lie, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydra Virus (talkcontribs) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, it was worth a shot. Epic Genius (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your nomination for new WTC[edit]

Hi Epic; You appear to want to nominate the new WTC page for GA assessment. When I read through the page I noticed that one of the sections in the article was just marked as being unfinished. Also, after reading the recent article about World Trade Center Transportation Hub dealing with Calatrava and cost over-runs in New York Magazine recently, it appears that there is no separate section in the article discussing the Spiraling costs, which continue to grow. Does this sound like something you are interested in looking at? MusicAngels (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels: Yes, an addition like that would be interesting. Thank you for your feedback. I've withdrawn the GAN for now, but I'll re-add it once the appropriate text is added. Epic Genius (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World Trade Center (2001–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westfield (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) 08:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

New York City[edit]

Thanks for your edits over the past 24 hours. I couldn't figure out what was going on there (the boroughs table was placed in duplicate, if you had noticed!) amidst the mess, so I had reverted back to status quo, but these subsequent edits make much more sense. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Castncoot: No problem. This weird layout came about because @Facts707 wanted the boro navbox on top. It looked weird there, so I placed it on the bottom (of course, I didn't know the boro navbox was duplicated). Anyway, thank you, as well, for your assumption of good faith. Epic Genius (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I figured as much, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor update[edit]

This note is only delivered to English Wikipedia subscribers of the visual editor's newsletter.

The location of the visual editor's preference has been changed from the "Beta" tab to the "Editing" section of your preferences on this wiki. The setting now says Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta. This aligns with almost all the other WMF wikis; it doesn’t mean the visual editor is complete, or that it is no longer “in beta phase” though.

This action has not changed anything else for editors: it still honours editors’ previous choices about having it on or off; logged-out users continue to only have access to wikitext; the “Edit” tab is still after the “Edit source” one. You can learn more at the visual editor’s talk page.

We don’t expect this to cause any glitches, but in case your account no longer has the settings that you want, please accept our apologies and correct it in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences. Thank you for your attention, Elitre (WMF) -16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi. I hate to be disagreeable with such an agreeable person as you, EG. I am not a regular "badger" of oppose votes, but it deeply offends my sense of honor and fair play when an administrator engages in a calculated "hit" on an RfA candidate, making exaggerated claims of racism and racial insensitivity, as well as alleging violations and ignorance of policies and guidelines by the candidate that they themselves misrepresent, misunderstand or ignore. The fact that the chief oppose voter engaged in impermissible canvassing (and arguably personal attacks, too) in order to achieve his preferred outcome in a page move discussion, and then attempted to blame the RfA candidate for ignorance of policy and a failure to accept a slim "consensus" obtained by canvassing is really among the most egregious RfA misconduct I have witnessed in my 6+ years on-wiki. I don't know any of the parties, but I am genuinely angry that this type of gamesmanship is still considered to be acceptable conduct at RfA. And it's worse because two administrators are at the heart of it, and worse yet because it works. At some point, the scorched-earth RfA tactics need to stop, and people who attempt them need to be held publicly accountable. My 2 cents worth.

I hope we cross paths under happier circumstances next time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Dirtlawyer1. I don't think we were particularly in disagreement on this RfA, but it's just that we may have had different opinions on the RfA opponents, which is allowed. FWIW, I share some of your sentiments about these oppose comments in particular. Regards, Epic Genius (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
We all need to endeavor to be better at disagreeing without being disagreeable, but it's damn difficult to do when someone else is willing to take a metaphorical meat cleaver to an RfA candidate who can't really defend themselves. This one's on me, and I sincerely apologize for any offense given. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
None taken. (And this is why I don't keep meat cleavers. (Couldn't resist. Face-smile.svg)) Epic Genius (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)[edit]

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim
Women in Architecture Guggenheim Logo.jpg
NYC - Guggenheim Museum.jpg

You are invited to join us for a full afternoon and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture.

noon - 8pm (drop-in anytime!) at Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Garrett Lobby @ 1071 5th Ave by E 88 St

In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon— to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both.

The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome.

Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Taipei 101 GA Reassessment[edit]

Epicgenius, would you mind taking a look at the Taipei 101 article and my individual reassessment at Talk:Taipei 101/GA1? I am asking for your advice because of your work with architecture articles. sst 10:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: I'll try to take a look at it later. Epic Genius (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Queens, New York[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll respond in a bit, once I formulate a proper response, but I don't especially object to the use of the phrasing "Queens, New York", hence my moves. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thank you for your note. I take it that you support the status quo? Epic Genius (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I think so, yes. It's not perfect, but I've been mulling it over, and I can't see any other option that I think is better. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Alright, cool, thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Search parameters[edit]

Please see my reply in response to your comment, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise.

One simply has to alter the search parameters and not just only search for the exact specific name, but also related keywords.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Thanks for your note. I'll look there. In addition, thank you for your work on the article. Epic Genius (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I admit that it is a bit frustrating to find that some folks have difficulty changing their opinions after the amount of research I've put into it. And the amount of secondary sources call it "best of all time", etc. And that they feel the need to reply in threaded responses, multiple times, to people voting opposite from their view, again and again. It is a bit disconcerting, especially in the face of the sheer volume of research I've attempted to carry out. I hope you can understand? — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I do. You carry out all this research, and then some people want to delete it anyway. I can see. Epic Genius (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Let me know if you want help verifying my research, JSTOR, etc. Your kind words are most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Or if you have any ideas, perhaps, of anything else I can do at this point in time after this amount of research to further address notability? Have I done that already? Have I done enough research and expansion and writing and Quality improvement efforts to demonstrate that? Do I have to do more? — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: I don't know, exactly, what you can do right now, other than wait for the AFD to conclude so you can get your good article nomination reviewed. (Have you checked other repositories like HighBeam Research?) Epic Genius (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I've checked HighBeam and added more information. Like Shatner saying he preferred Belushi's impression of himself -- to his own later one that he did on SNL. I've also added a new subsection, Impact on Star Trek, on how the sketch itself later affected the cast and crew. — Cirt (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Is there anything else I can do to help? Epic Genius (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No idea. I'm quite confused as to how to persuade a couple people this is notable -- especially after all the research I've already done to demonstrate that effectively by improving the article, itself. If you've got any ideas, I'm all ears.Cirt (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
In the future, I highly suggest taking up an interest in Star Wars and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert instead of Star Trek and SNL. Yes? Face-smile.svg
(But in all seriousness, it looks like the snowball clause applies here and that the AFD will probably close as "snow keep." Epic Genius (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Snow would be nice. But also it would be nice to allow it to run the full length of time as normal, so that there will be a final definitive decision and it hopefully would never have to go to AFD again in the future. I happen to like both Star Wars and Star Trek, and all things Colbert. ;) — Cirt (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I think if it runs the full length, most people will probably !vote to keep anyway. Also, me too. I love Star Wars and Stephen Colbert. Face-wink.svg Epic Genius (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Update: I've posted a 2nd Update at the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise -- does that seem to make things clearer? — Cirt (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. That post really helps future !voters understand the current context of the AFD. Epic Genius (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope so. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)