User talk:Fabartus

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

SEMI-RETIRED
WIKIPEDIA EDITOR 

Contents

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 // <bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fabartus&action=submit#96.38.161.58 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)>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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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, 2013[edit]

Resolved

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]

Resolved
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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved
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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved
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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved
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]

Resolved
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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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]

Resolved

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)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Resolved

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Succession[edit]

Resolved

For several years Template:Succession has just been a wrapper around the newer standard succession box templates. I've subst'ed it out prior to retiring it. Hope it doesn't feel like I've been trampling over your personal pages. Regards, Bazj (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for courtesy of the notice, but never saw the need for ever retiring a tool someone used. Far too many newer templates are so complicated they are indecipherable. Shrug. Be well. // FrankB 03:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ctr[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Ctr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cms-catlist-up[edit]

Resolved

A tag has been placed on Template:Cms-catlist-up requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bazj (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category see also[edit]

Resolved

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Category see also has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

Resolved

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Resolved

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pipe character[edit]

Resolved

Sorry you think of my edits as "peeing" on your edits. Neither you nor I owns this article, and I think both of us are trying to improve it. Edit comments are a quick (though terse) way of explaining changes, and I apologize if the explanation of my edit was insufficient. So here's a longer explanation.

I don't think substantive comments like yours belong in notes, especially not in the lede. The lede should, I think, be short and to the point and not justify or explain too much. On the other hand, the origin of the term "pipe" to mean "|" is certainly worthwhile, and it's true that that is never stated in the current version of the article (after removal of your note), which is a problem, I agree. I have just added a sentence to the "pipe" section.

That said, I still think that "when computer processes were nearly all text based and GUI interfaces far off in the future & dreams of engineers..." is unnecessary editorializing, certainly in an article about the character (not about the concept of pipes, which is covered in Pipeline (Unix)).

As for "Pipes still underlay today's Windows and Unix Operating Systems for those knowledgeable enough to know how to use them.", I am not sure what you have in mind. Yes, connecting processes through streams is used all over the place for networking, pseudo-teletypes, etc. But the explicit creation of pipelines in the shell using the command-line "|" character, though useful, doesn't seem fundamental. And the "for those knowledgeable enough..." part is, again, editorializing, and not encyclopedic in tone.

By the way, the Pipeline (Unix) article says that McIlroy invented the concept of a software pipeline. I don't think that's correct. If I remember correctly, Multics supported connecting processes with streams (as did the more-obscure ITS); it simply didn't have a special command-line syntax for it.

Best, --Macrakis (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if my colloquial terminology was found offensive. On your last Para, I have no clue... I just noticed the shortcoming linking pipe character from the Wikibooks, so made an edit on the WP.
I don't do that much anymore, as the reactions tend to be more academic and time consuming than I care to be. Even Jimmy Wales has bemoaned the lack of surprise phrases now in the current mindset, and this 'difference' is a case in point. Your 'editorializing' is my experience passed along to a younger generation. Yeah, I could have been more academic and stiff with the wording, but I spent quite enough time on it and learned to leave something more minor for others to pee in. No offense, but there are busy-bodies about, AND the bureaucratic and university mindsets are bent that way to a tragic amount.
Thanks very much for your note of explanation, but t'was not necessary. My note to you was me resigning the edits to you. I can count on all my digits the number of times I've reverted edits on this project since 2004... see I find your change was okay but borderline disrespectful... the kind of thing which makes editing somewhat hostile anymore... and forgetting handling the note content and section orphaned was my real issue—hence my note to you.
The key I desired was mentioning of the common pipe character terminology. End story. I should have left that go with a lede phrase change and NOT tried to bolster the case.

Be well. Best regards, FrankB 00:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's important to capture the history of technical concepts. I have lived through much of this history myself, and try to document the history using reliable sources rather than my own memories or perspectives. WP is not the 1911 Britannica, where you had signed articles with pronounced (and interesting) points of view.
As for 'disrespectful' edits, I find it best to focus on the content rather than the editors. If you feel something important was lost in my edit, you could either revert it and suggest discussion on the Talk page, or just go directly to discussion on the Talk page. --Macrakis (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Disrespectful is a bit overstated and slightly wide of the mark. Let me 'splain this way. I'd try to fix something while maintaining some of the last editor's phrasing or point(s); nuff said, and again, I despise reverts save as a counter to vandalism.
Thought for the day... A lot of verbiage for a single ASCII character! Be well, FrankB, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
True. About preserving the last editor's point, you are right, and I did inadvertently remove the point about the origin of the term "pipe" for the character. I suppose I assumed (without checking) that it was in the body of the article. I did add it back after your comment.... --Macrakis (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Lehigh and Susquehanna Railroad[edit]

Unresolved

Per WP:Categorization, 'An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist'. When you created this article, you created a link to a nonexistent category. Please don't do this in the future....William 16:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bill, take the hint and do the creation as in you're an editor and I made provision per this and the project was lucky I took the time to create the missing historical article. NOT YOUR JOB to tell me how to edit with my time. You forgot to quote WP:IAR, especially WP:FATRAT! You also forgot the Barnstar for creating new articles when there is no time...
Next time make the fix, not a complaint. Hmmm, you're hell on wheels as a BOT operator--try using your head and editing too. I give as much time as I can... just these days most of it is on the Wikibooks. Be well. // FrankB 18:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I might be wrong but you're probably the type of driver who after someone honks their horn at them because you cut them off, you respond by giving them the finger....William 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No I'm the type of driver that wouldn't cut you off, but wave you in and let you go first. Which is why if I saw a problem I'd just fix it and not take even more time trying to get someone else to do something I could have done in a few moments. OTOH, I can picture you as a guy giving a finger pretty easily... // FrankB 08:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your 2013 computer science comment[edit]

Resolved

I posted some questions about your old comment at Talk:Assignment_(computer_science)#Article_is_incomplete --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American frontier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris (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) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (1763)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Resolved

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Resolved

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

Resolved

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Get your facts straight[edit]

Resolved

Re: If you're going to gang up, please get the facts straight... This statement is Blatantly false: " to prove that Britain is "number one in the air". Compare to my correction. Britain was by premise behind by over three years in the aerotech development. Hint. I was watching the film on Netflix or Amazon Sunday, which prompted the edit. See the talk, and thanks for confirming this as a hostile place to contribute my time. Idiots everywhere in cliques. Facts apparently no longer matter. // FrankB 07:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Your observations are in the talk page of the article but unless there is a consensus for the changes you have proposed, the changes do substantially change the plot section. See: Talk:Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines. FWIW, if you do want to work collaboratively with others in this Wickwackyworld, it is best not to thrash about with insults. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7[edit]

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Panther Creek Valley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panther Creek (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) 10:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allentown (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) 11:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


RE: Good catch[edit]

Resolved

Actually, I'm using Lupin's tool to revert with and it doesn't actually give me enough time to insert an edit summary. Sorry! KoshVorlon 17:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Have no idea what that tool is, but perhaps you can customize a vandalism message... or ask for another button option to add one to the tool. Good luck either way--and nice to meetchya! I hardly ever patrol my watchlist these days! // FrankB 18:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Lehigh and Susquehanna Railroad fate[edit]

Resolved

Do you have evidence that the Lehigh and Susquehanna Railroad still exists? I tried to find online if it still exists and got no answers.Granthew (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not verifiable, at least without digging around officially--which would be against WP:OR. Heard the point when interviewing the director of the No. Nine Mine Museum in Coaldale when on a railfanning vacation back in 2013. If true, the company is off the stock-market and closely held (family) assets that don't need to do anything but minimal filings.
Okay, but if it is still around, would it then still own the mainline trackage from Bethlehem to Old Penn Haven that is claimed to be owned by Norfolk Southern and the other parts past Old Penn Haven that is claimed to be owned by RBMN? Bethlehem to Old Penn Haven is identified as part of the Norfolk Southern Lehigh Line. Granthew (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmmmm, good question! The short answer would be YES! But it Depends. Any particular real estate parcel could be subdivided and go separate ways, so just because they are around, does not mean they kept that piece of real estate. However, if it were profitable and needfully useful as a choke point stretch--I suspect they'd have held onto it... like gold and money in the bank! Taking a look at where 'Penn Haven Junction' is, if LH&S is still around, it is almost certainly a property they'd have held on to. Ditto the stretch down past Bethlehem and so forth, all the way to Easton. The real question is whether CNJ, Conrail, RBMN, or NS ever gained ownership vice control as leasees. That question could be resolved with a bit of research, either via the secretary of states offices of the Commonwealth or by contacting various county assessors offices. For the encyclopedia, such would constitute OR, I suspect.
In general, Ownership, control, and which rights go with which status are legal refinements subject to endless vagaries of contract law, which is to say who is assigned what obligations and privileges by any particular contract. Rail Companies, perhaps more than any other corporate entities directly took over control of any and all responsibilities of lands used by leasehold arrangements. So in the early days of railroading (1830s-1880s) the backers and owners of shortlines, indeed strategized (and sold the idea to potential funders) to build a right of way so the line would be attractive to the big boy who'd come along and either buy them outright--gaining a short term windfall--or gain a long term lease, so ensuring a reliable regular income stream, much like a annuity. Other arrangements were track rights, which often proved less satisfactory, as the operating rail company was always dependent upon permission from whoever had control. Ownership of valuable land is what puts the 'Real' term into 'Real Estate' after all.
That particular junction was originally built by LH&S under the 1837 rights of ways in the revised Main Line of Public Works in Pennsylvania--which started there as an extension of the Lehigh Canal up from the canal head Jim Thorpe through the gorge to White Haven. When the dams got wiped out in the 1860s from floods, the LH&S actually took steps to become a real regional railroad by creating a continuous run from Wilkes-Barre down to Easton on the Delaware. They didn't do a great job, being mine and coal oriented with a minor in passenger services —so to speak, so it took less than ten years to have something of a public revolt. Hence the clamor in the business and political communities to create the LVRR, and its unusual directly competing right of way paralleling the LH&S all the day down to Duryea. Faced with a real operating railroad company to compete with, LC&N or LH&S (if there was much of a difference) leased all their railroads to the CNJ.
So sorry I can't help you any further. I've a reason to poke around on this some more, but on a strictly catch as catch can time table. Myself and others are preparing to digitally model the LH&S built roads in particular on the way to modeling the greater Wyoming Valley. Doing the rural parts to get our feet wet with detailing and saving ourselves for a time from 'the distractions' of all the models needed to build the citified environs beyond the Ashley Planes. One of our guys has already worked out the model for the Planes, to the relief of the rest of us in Yesterdayz-Trainz (our user group of mutually supportive modelers). I'll see if I can find out some more from some of the historical societies, but it's not my priority. // FrankB 05:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so should I try to contact the Number Nine Museum for more information?Granthew (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
That would possibly be useful, and a good option if you're local enough to visit. It occurred to me the other day that researching Lexus/Nexus data would tell the tale, and avoid hearsay and OR criteria. If you have access to those, I'd say that's the best way to go, you end with a verifiable cite and a sureness hearsay would never give. To be perfectly frank, the Museum people had a bent outlook--they were all UMWA members, and to say the least, the 'management' of LC&N were not their favorite kinds of people! I'm confident I can get into those using the town library portal--and have been planning to explore that resource for other needs soon. So if you get nowhere, or don't have access, let me know. The other thing one can try is to call the assessors office or the registrar of deeds, be it a town, or (in Pennsylvania, almost certainly a) county office, and hope to get a sympathetic ear. This might be fastest if you're a smooth talker. // FrankB 05:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't live close to the mine and I'm not really a smooth talker and not really too comfortable with government officials. How do you use the Lexus/Nexus data and town library portal? Which town are you referring to for the library portal? Granthew (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL, well, I doubt clerks at the registry of deeds, or the town tax assessors offices would bite... chances are they'd welcome a change of pace request for such information if you explained why (Wikipedia's become rather respectable--can't think of anyone who hasn't used it!) you want to know who owns a bit of property; but as to the rest...

I live around Boston, so the library system here is excellent (competing networks!). I recall back in the mid-90s, there were already some competing standards and capabilities in standard software packages sold to various local library associations. Having a card in any similar library system— one should find software systems capabilities compatible with what my local reference desk librarian called a portal...

so the answer is phone or visit the reference desk and get a briefing or primer. If you can log on into their portal, a lot of reference subscriptions are online—things one would have to pay for individually--with a big expensive series of outlays.

As a hypothetical example that's likely enough, say a historical society, 'Anthracite Railroad Historical Society' have an online gateway for subscribing members only. The likelihood is high, a 'Boston and Maine Historical Society' (to which my New England town library belongs) might have reciprocal rights and were able to access the members pages in the former. Project that to a whole palette of resource sites with discounted memberships to educational institutions... museums, historical societies, university data bases, and so on. Lots of things have been digitized this past couple of decades. The library portal route will likely keep the cost of researching things way down.

Whether your library subscribes to LexisNexis (One was legal the other News. There used to be a difference, whether they exist separately now, I have no idea.) In each case, the answers will be found by the reference librarian. // FrankB 20:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks for all of the suggestions, I'll start with the easiest first and then work my way from there!Granthew (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reading Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Williamsport (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) 10:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Resolved

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.

Belle Vernon, Pennsylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Washington County and Westmoreland County
Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Traverse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 May[edit]

Resolved

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

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) 00:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It's underconstruction Bot!

Saddle (landform)[edit]

Resolved

Hi, I removed File: Cliffs Saddles Traverses Passes Ascents & Peaks-- from Sources of Nesquehoning creek from hzlt93sw-Rot90cw,_LargerType.png from Saddle (landform) as it the alt mentioned File:MaximumCounterexample.png that you also added so I assume this was meant to be the same? I thought I'd just point this out in case I was mistaken. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Damn - misread the time! way too soon - sorry - noticed your still working on it. Apologies KylieTastic (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6[edit]

Resolved

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.

Saddle (landform) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Maxima and Traverse
Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Joshua White
Sullivan Expedition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Portage Township, PA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The map[edit]

The map is attributed to pl:12 Kompania Geograficzna. I've adjusted the categories and licenses based on commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright. The source is unclear and the uploader should give it. Re 163x, I stopped reading it years ago. I think I got fed up with Eric & friends insistence that Poland was backwards and needed to be destroyed, coupled with the series about reforming Russia and Germany and finally, the "smart Americans know what's best and will change backwards Europe" theme. Oh, and nobody ever thanked me for the numerous historical biographies of Polish characters leaving in 163x I wrote back then on Wiki, I kept announcing them on the Bar to the general lack of interest. In the end I left the Baen's Bar and moved on to reading other series. Anyway, good to see you around here! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I know how the series was wearing. If it weren't mostly in ebook form now, I'd still not bother trying to catch up. Weber's snail-pace has me looking for some new fiction and I found a group of those in my Amazon wish list so put them in my cart. Agree with you about the 'Nationalistic' parochialism's... sub-conscience bias is a powerful thing I think! OTOH, we both know the target market is American first, so marketing to stereotypes is not too surprising. Not doing so requires more work and due diligence. The other thing I got annoyed with was the opposition was often presented as more straw man than realistic.
  • I'm a figment of your imagination. Or slumming? Truth is I've been doing some historical research and reading for a large Trainz project and couldn't not fix up some related articles here. The kids (like you my young friend) <g> mostly have no contextual perspective. Things happening decades apart get jumbled into the same sentences — which given leadership changes over a decade or two, is far much too much tightening of the prose. (Sorry, pet peeve!) Stay well! You still in the Orient? FrankB 13:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I am still in the Far East (Korea), yes. Will probably stay here for quite a bit longer, the job is treating me nicely, and I got used to the food and people (more or less :D). Language barrier is still a major thing though... I wish Weber would pick up the pace on Honorverse rather then starting new series or doing prequels and treecats-for-kids spin offs. I guess he run out of ideas / will to continue the main story arc, sigh. How's life treating you these days? Are you playing this Trainz thingy? Never heard of it before, sounds cool. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Amen and also feel curses, foiled again too on Weber's meanderings. Maybe he's gotten overwhelmed by the complexity of possibilities with progressing against the Solarian League. Or maybe he's ticked because there was perhaps push back against his schema for advancing the storyline, the dispersal to a viewpoint from many eyes by using Henke, etc. to move the story forward. Many saw that as a spin-off situation, but while there was some fumbling around, I thought he was hitting stride with that, making it work, smoothing it out. It is a broad canvas, after all.
  • Don't mind the prequel, so much personally, though it is stumbling a bit relative to what it could have been 'written freely', constrained as it is to force the story to explain artifact politics; I just finished the second therein, and feel it too is hitting a modal stride, despite the anchor of a co-author. Haven't yet assayed the Safehold series, which has taken a lot of his attentions, obviously. My eyes aren't up to paperbacks without great effort, and only copy I had till last month was PB. Now have a kindle version, so a whole new well regarded series to go through this summer!
  • The Trainz simulators have been my refuge against those same eye problems. Getting old is not something I recommend to anyone. Same reason I went mostly inactive here, actually. Too much bright white eyestrain (now exasperated by the limits of Windows 10 to customize the desktop and windows). And... it's way cheaper to build an notional model digitally than it is to find space to set up a model train layout in H.O. scale. in one's basement, nor is there the need to join a club that rents a large space for meetings.
I have a fantasy "Basement model Railroad Empire on Steroids" that spans what would be real world 16x X 25y miles, which would need a basement 972 feet (296 m) X 1,518 feet (463 m) to fit it in, with a crane & harness to 'fly above' the terrain so one could paint and fiddle, much less operate on it. This model explored what would happen in a heavily industrialized mountainous region spanning a drainage divide. It pays a lot of attention to streams and river watercourses and ways tracks and industries fit into niches of rare semi-flat open areas. (Pennsylvania Native, remember!? <BSEG>) The virtual ability to walk around in the world and get up close and personal is pretty neat!
More to the point, you can be very realistic, span hundreds of miles. Our 'Yesterdayz-Trainz' user group is beginning the project we call the Anthracite Road, modeling the very dense railroads operating in the Wyoming Valley ca 1943-44; look at that in Googleearth from corners 1) a bit south+east of Jim Thorpe, PA to 2) S+W of Tamaqua, PA north past the latitude of 3) Scranton.
There were at least eight first class railroads and a bunch of shortlines servicing the industries and mines of that valley. The period was the 'final' boom time here in the US for passenger trains and also in the region involving Steam and Diesel locomotion and all electrified lines like the Lackawanna Valley Railroad (LWVRR) (which, thanks to a local, is the first bit some of us tackled, as a prequel project); all in all, an ambitious project. Even were I fully retired, we're looking at 4-5 years to fully do the model, with 4-5 others helping the route building parts, and the other 50+ group members doing the custom built models (most of Yz-Tz's members primarily build models using 3ds Max, Gmax, or (mostly) Blender; so that is a big edge once we identify a prototype need to duplicate as a model). There are actually over 70 of us now, but 20-25 seem mostly uninterested, are just quiet types, or missing much of the time on our forum. To be fair, the last group has a bunch, over a dozen, like myself still working and limited in time compared to the retirees and disabled in our ranks.
  • Gotta run, suggest we talk like this on email. still same username at gmail.com so write there! // FrankB 14:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Conduct of another user[edit]

Resolved

Hi, I noticed that you interacted with ZH8000 some time ago. So did I recently, and I found their contributions and method of interaction with others questionable at best. I'm considering whether to initiate a discussion with them about this, and if need be, a community discussion. Would you be interested in participating in these discussions? Regards,  Sandstein  17:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein (talk · contribs), looking over Z's contribs, I don't see many pages where I've contributed to the same articles... though there be a cloud of 12+ years in that assessment...
So, ZH8000 (talk · contribs) and her/his conduct doesn't ring any bells. Were there a dispute, it would be over WP:OWN or otherwise their behavior in being lazy and unqualified as an editor—meaning an idiot too quickly resorting to a revert; then not giving due ground when and if the original edit was supported (opposing the revert).
[Some kids here are way too quick that way, makes a hostile editing environment.]
so... No, not unless there was a pattern of abuses you can point to. // FrankB 16:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
For the record, to be fair, also looked at your contribs before closing and see there is some dispute in talk:Bern#German where you two are butting heads. My reaction therein is you are both being pretty obstinate over minor matters. Don't see a need to mention the language in the lede/lead at all. It detracts from the article, and unless you speak one or both dialects, is of zero value. Can say the same about the population figures, but for its relationships to other Swiss cities is of interest.

rewrite: "The official language of Bern is (the Swiss variety of Standard) German, but the most spoken language is a Alemannic Swiss German dialect, Bernese German." to "" and instead put in some historical context, which is totally missing in the lead as it stands. Overall, the lead is way too short, and while the language discussion is appropriate, it is in the wrong place given it's relative lack of value. Best regards, FrankB 16:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Resolved

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Massachusetts Bay Colony 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:
  • claims holding they held rights to lands beyond Rhode Island up to the western side of Cape Cod (and the contemporary [[Plymouth Bay Colony]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 June[edit]

Resolved

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

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) 00:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pass (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) 10:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. v. Hortonville Education Ass’n[edit]

Resolved

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. v. Hortonville Education Ass’n, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: [[:{{{url}}}]]. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for advice[edit]

Resolved

Please help me improve. You said at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf: "It'd be easier, imho, were the RFC statement better stated". How would you have worded the RfC? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the impulse behind the statement was due to my own inclinations... and bad impulse control. Guess I was a tad annoyed the question wasn't phrased as a Yes/No, as you requested later in the discussion. Bottom line, my time is precious and all the talk pages are a bit annoying most of the time, so in reality, what was coming out was I wanted or needed to be doing other things. Otherwise, I would have given a bit more of a backstory on the controversy locally on the page, a bit more of a synopsis. Forget I said anything. Didn't mean for anyone to take it as critical. Best wishes! FrankB 13:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. Thanks - I won't tie you up any longer! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Resolved

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kittanning Path 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:
  • cross east to west across the [[Appalachian Mountains]] west of [[New England]]. The Kittanny path (by other names{{efn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13[edit]

Resolved

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.

Freshet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Appalachian and Pile
Danville, Pennsylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Algonquian
Kittanning Path (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Creek
Lenapehoking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Beaver Dam
Neutral Nation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Algonkian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kittanning Gap, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mule train (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) 09:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2[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.

Laurentide Ice Sheet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lake George
Pennsylvania Canal (Delaware Division) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Product

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Reference errors on 4 August[edit]

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

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) 00:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9[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.

History of Buffalo, New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to British and Epoch
History of Detroit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Monongehela and Military power
Main Line of Public Works (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Barrier
Mauch Chunk Switchback Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Prospectus
Union Canal (Pennsylvania) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mule train
Wright's Ferry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Middletown, PA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC) All {{resolved}} ???

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pennsylvania Canal (Susquehanna Division), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terminus (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) 09:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

August 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Train station, did not appear constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop edit warring. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • S'cuse me? One revert does not make an edit war. Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing. Are you trying to inflame the situation?
And I'm the one out two-to-three hours carefully crafting coverage of a short topic an a place where it fits historically. I'll back my contribs against anyone. Note I ADD content, not mess with other folks contributions.
  • So go step on the other fellow. HIS actions are the sort of edits which make this project a hostile place to contribute. Did you warn him? How constructive are YOU! Any idiot can be a deletionist. It takes someone with knowledge to add relevant context. // FrankB 03:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Resolved

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ship transport, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coke, Rail and Prime mover (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) 09:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

August 2016[edit]

Information icon I noticed that a message you recently left to 69.58.42.90 may have been unduly harsh for a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • If you examine the contribs, the IP has made quite a few edits, some not so helpful. Normally I'd welcome such people, but while I spent years on the welcoming committee, in this case, curing red links is anti-expansion, and contrary to the intentions of an experienced registered editor. For example, these past eight weeks, when I have editing time, I've often linked to Canal Age, an article we are sadly lacking, and which shortcoming I intend to fix. Should the many railroad and canal articles focused on early industrial revolution developments fail to mention the term? Fail to link something pending? Or preview the writing too come and be linked automatically when I rough one in? IMHO, we can do without helpers unwilling to log in that don't have the courtesy to become a regular nor pay attention to conventions. // FrankB 13:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Resolved
The activity you were complaining about, removing a DAB entry that had no corresponding article, was a productive edit. TJRC (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Dude, you clearly weren't around when we had mostly only red links! Unlinking a useful title and missing article topic isn't progress, it's adding to overhead by adding transactions to the history which will need reversed once such article is written! If you take one away, no one gets nudged to begin writing an article, so me thinks you are being dense as a lawyer. Try adding to the project without criticizing someone who DOES!!! // FrankB 17:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:MOSDAB. TJRC (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
What are you? Some kind of idiot child? You trolling me for having a different POV? Try WP:IAR, a much more important and longer standing rule. If it gets the job done, do it. Deleting red links is asinine. Don't contact me again about rules. In short, grow the hell up. // FrankB 20:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)