User talk:Epicgenius

This page was last changed by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk, contribs) on Tuesday, November 26, 2024, at 7:32:14 pm UTC.

---

---

Very important userboxes

MOREThis user has more userboxes.

This user has an alternative account named Kylo Ren.

ENDThis user has no more userboxes.

---

Click here to scroll to the bottom of the page.

---

dyk

Hey, Epicgenius! So here's the thing about dyk: if you haven't created preps, you have no idea what prep-setters and admins at dyk do or what challenges they face. Many editors who are regular nominators and reviewers think they'd be willing to admin, but have never filled preps, and when they become admins and start moving preps to queues, they quickly realize they didn't know what they were volunteering for. A prep-setter doesn't just create a balanced set. They also do a quick re-review on many of the hooks; you get to know whose hooks you don't have to review too heavily, but you always have to at least go check for a recent edit war or tags. If the nominator or the reviewer are new or known to be sloppy, you'll have to do a full re-review of that hook. Often prep-setters have questions they have to ask at the hook, and they deal with pushback from noms/reviewers/passersby for that. Then once you've finished a prep you have to deal with fallout at DYK talk and ERRORS. Admins do the exact same thing -- a re-review, because prep-setters miss things too, then the move (fairly simple), posting questions at DYK talk and pinging involved parties, dealing with pushback from them, and finally any fallout at ERRORS when someone finds an error you missed. So if you think you would be willing to admin at dyk, definitely go fill preps for a while to see if you like it or not. Some people love it -- I did, and I like adminning there -- but not everyone is cut out for it. It's a high-visibility job. People catch your mistakes, and the only way to prevent that is to catch other people's mistakes first. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, thanks for the advice. That is good to know. I think this sort of stuff should be enjoyable for me, even if a bit difficult. I just read the project page on prep areas, and it seems a bit difficult to get a good balance on hooks. epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's one of the most fun parts of setting preps. The thing to do for your first prep is pick the bottom empty set (which right now gives you three days to fill it but normally six days.) Count to figure out whether the image hook needs a bio or a non-bio (it alternates by day). Go find one, vet it, and transfer it. That'll let the other prep setters know you'll fill that set. Not that they or an admin won't move stuff in and out if they need it or think another set is better for that hook, but in general one prep-setter works on a set. Then start putting the puzzle together -- no more than four bios (alternating in the set with non-bio), no more than one music/science/military/whatever subject. Not too many from any one country, though 2 - 4 USA hooks will be necessary. A balance of geographical area, not all from English-speaking countries. A balance of long and short. And of course a quirky. It's an art. Don't be afraid to trim or tweak hooks, but read the nom first if you do, as there may have already been discussion. Keep on top of talk in case someone asks a question about one of the hooks in that set, because some people won't realize they need to ping you as the promoter. :) Ping me any time, and Yoninah will often leave pointers on how to improve at your talk. When she stops, you know you're getting near the point of competence. :) —valereee (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎

Subway articles

Once again, very impressive work on very important station complex and line articles. There is more to be added about the change in BMT plans re:Canal Street. Eventually, Clark Street Tunnel should be its own article. Also, the citations for IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line are really messed up and include self-published sources like nycsubway.org, and there is more history that could be added. A lot of my older GA nominations should be looked at again for things like this. Also, for Union Square, it is worth mentioning the impromptu 9/11 memorial, and the post-2016 election post-it notes (https://mashable.com/article/power-of-post-it-note-protest-subway-therapy, https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/post-it-notes-left-union-square-election-preserved-article-1.2913344, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/19/post-election-subway-therapy-sticky-notes-taken-down-but-not-thrown-out/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/nyregion/subway-election-therapy-wall-sticky-notes.html). Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613, the pleasure is mine. I do agree that the Clark Street Tunnel should get its own page in the future. I've also noticed that there's a lot more that can be said about the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, especially its construction, and will have to work on it gradually. The biggest mess, though, is the Canal Street article - there are a lot of details about the BMT station that are just not mentioned at the moment, and the article in general needs more refs.

As for the Union Square station, the article already mentions both the 9/11 memorial and the post-it wall (the second paragraph of 14th Street–Union Square station#Artwork). I thought one paragraph would be sufficient, seeing as how the artwork was not sanctioned by the MTA but seems to be covered by multiple reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree. I missed it somehow. Don't forget the Stantec studies, like the one that found making Clark Street accessible was infeasible, and which provides some sourcing for station layout (i.e. platform length/width). Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It also is probably worth mentioning the 1990 fire in the Clark Street article. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree and can get around to that soon. In the meantime, I was looking at the study for Union Square, which says: This technology does not meet ADA standards, and since there is currently no technology that does, there is no fully accessible solution for the southbound platform. We are including an option for providing elevator service to this platform in this report with the understanding that this will not provide a fully accessible solution at this time. So I suppose this means the southbound platform can get an elevator, it just won't be ADA-accessible because gap fillers, by their very nature, are ADA-inaccessible. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Also, unrelated, but the 1990 Clark Street Tunnel fire was very notable, and there were major reports done on fire safety/communication, etc. in its aftermath. It would warrant an article of its own. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I also think the 1990 Clark Street fire should get its own article. (I think the fire happened just east of the Clark Street station, though, not in the tunnel under the river.) In terms of recent NYC Subway disasters, the fire has had at least as much of an impact as the 1991 Union Square derailment or the 1995 Williamsburg Bridge subway collision did. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Also-the provisions in the Eastern Parkway Line used for the Clark Street Tunnel connection were initially intended for a line over the Manhattan Bridge. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That is interesting. If we can find a reliable source for this, I could add it to the Borough Hall or Eastern Parkway Line articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have seen reliable sources for this-if you cannot find them, I can look for them after I get my final paper for the semester done today. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I started a draft Clark Street Tunnel article here: User:Kew Gardens 613/sandbox 7#Clark Street Tunnel. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen this article before? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613, I have, but thanks for clipping it. The first part of that source seems to largely duplicate the New York Herald Tribune ref that's already in the Fulton Street station article. But it has some info that isn't mentioned in the NYHT source, specifically the 535-foot length of the station. The second part of the source could be used for the Broad Street station article though. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Outstanding work on the article. We really shouldn't be using The Station Reporter as a source. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There is stuff to be added about flooding/water intrusion problems at Canal. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a report put out. I found two articles I had clipped (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times/98305321/, https://www.newspapers.com/article/times-union/99774843/) Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I've noticed quite a bit of info about how Canal Street's proximity to the old Collect Pond contributed to tons of water problems there. I can add these sources in later. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It was a paper, not a report. I haven't found it online. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I found it. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This journal is a great source for construction details. I found one article with details on underpinning and other aspects of subway construction from 1919, one on sewer siphons, SI transportation, and Columbus Circle construction Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I might have to look through this journal to, um, shore up some architectural articles as well. That Canal Street article was really detailed, and I expect the others will be no different. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Also one on train dispatching, the Manhattan Bridge Plaza, and the ENY tunnel Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for spamming here, but also Joralemon, and here, excavation, the Atlantic Av improvement, and Brighton Line improvements Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I will just add all these links to a subsection of User:Epicgenius/sandbox/to do, where we can both track it easily. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Signaling, car design, and ventilation, and IRT track design as well Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There is this thorough masterpiece on Dual Contracts construction. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. Epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 60 days. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 360 days. Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) – Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613, by the way, we might want to flesh out User:Epicgenius/sandbox/article-draft1, my sandbox on the Manhattan Bridge subway closure. I'm planning to bring the Manhattan Bridge article to GA, which will probably require condensing the Manhattan Bridge#Trackage history section, and the closures are a notable topic that I've been meaning to finish writing about for a while. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius I have been very busy, but, when I have a chance, will try to get back to this. Amazing work on all the bridge articles. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2025-2029 Capital Program recently came out. Some articles may need to be updated to reflect this. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Updating the complex articles (since they are all extremely short)

1 World Trade Center

• Needs history section
• Needs design section, which I will write shortly
• Needs destruction section
• "List of tenants" may need to be split to a separate article due to length
• "92nd Floor" section needs removed and incorporated into above "Destruction" section

2 World Trade Center

• Needs history section
• Needs design section
• Needs destruction section
• Potentially needs rewrite, after reading it I spotted a few errors

3 World Trade Center

• Actually has a history section, but needs expanded
• Rewrite Destruction section
• May need a "design" section

4 World Trade Center

• Has history and destruction sections
• Both need expanded
• More images needed

5 World Trade Center

• Half of the article is about 9/11, meaning half of the article is about 1 day when the structure existed for 31 years
• Needs a design section
• Either the gallery section needs removed or expanded to comply with MOS, it's currently just 3 images chilling around

7 World Trade Center

• Needs architecture section
• Needs more history pre-2001
• The destruction section may need to be summarized per WP:SUMSTYLE

I added the above subheaders just in case we need a list of things to do. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod: Thanks for starting this section. I might move this to User:Epicgenius/sandbox/to do when we're done figuring out what to do (since idk where else to put it). Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Construction of the World Trade Center has some info about the Twin Towers' structural design, so we can copy some of the relevant info into these articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Request For Comment

Hello, I would really appreciate it if you could please reply to the additional information I added to this conversation: [1] thanks Alamosta (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I'm not sure what you don't understand about my response. I was just making a passing comment explaining why the information wasn't included, which is that the study you're talking about is already mentioned on Wikipedia, just under another article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. I didn't discuss this any further because it was a drive-by comment.

(Also, if you're considering using the NY Post as a source, please note that it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; please see WP:NYPOST.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your response on the talk page brought up the organization who funded the University of Alaska Fairbanks study as your argument against mentioning the study in the article, which seemed like a strange tactic, and even the WP:FRINGE page you linked to does not seem to support you in this conclusion. That's why I didn't understand your response. It appeared to be a guilt by association fallacy and/or ad hominem fallacy rather than a discussion about encyclopedic noteworthiness.

The wiki page in question on WTC7 acts like NIST is somehow singularly authoritative and infallible on the matter, even though it is only one lone study, with results that have never been duplicated or verified by any other outside source, and the only other thorough and public research study on the topic came to a drastically different conclusion using similar methodology. Please set your feelings and politics aside for a moment and actually pause and listen to what I'm saying. The NIST study can and should be given more weight than UAF, but to completely ignore the UAF study as if it doesn't exist is being biased - and disingenuously referring to a university structural engineering study as a "conspiracy theory" is blatantly using wikipedia for political activism.

We are not discussing which study is correct. We are discussing WP:NPOV and this four year university study is made noteworthy, if not by the NY Post, then by the recent lengthy article written for the International Fire and Safety Journal, as I quoted from on the talk page. The topic of discussion is a building that supposedly fell because of fire, and the author of this latest article is a veteran fire fighter who quite literally wrote the book on how to fight fires, including highrises (4th edition of Engine Company Fireground Operations). To make an analogy to flat earth, which is an example given often for a fringe topic, it would be like an actual astronaut writing a serious and lengthy article for an astronomy journal about how the earth really is flat and that an in-depth university study proved that NASA lied to us about it being round. That of course would never happen in a million years, so why are you acting like this is somehow on equal ground with flat earth? Serious question.

NPOV pages states: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." And yet on the WTC7 page, the NIST report is treated as an uncontested fact and their findings are presented as direct statements, even though their research is seriously contested and is unverified scientifically. If you look up NCSTAR 1A on google scholar (which is the NIST report on building 7), it literally only has a measly 11 citations most of which only mention it in passing, after all these years of being published! That's not at all grounds for treating anything as fact, ever. The latest paper listed that cites it, a 2024 peer reviewed paper in a well-established relevant journal, says "To date, the exact cause of the failure of WTC 7 is still being studied. However, based on the evidence gathered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the most likely cause of failure is thermal expansion." And yet wikipedia, for some completely unknown reason, is reporting this thermal expansion failure as incontrovertible fact. Why are we not using similar language as this very reliable up to date source I just quoted? Seriously, I really don't understand. I'm trying to assume good faith here.

NPOV page states: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views" the UAF study is certainly less prominent than the NIST report, but it does actually exist and has been acknowledged in relevant publications, and the wiki page should reflect this.

Here's the deal - I am not trying to spam your user page with a debate. What I would like to do is change the article to have a more neutral tone, because right now it's not even close to being appropriate. If you don't want to give serious reason for me not to, I hope you will support me in that. If you would like to review the change prior to me making it we can do that as well.

Alamosta (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alamosta, I see, thanks for the explanation. This is figuratively above my pay grade, but if there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources discussing other theories about 7 WTC's collapse, feel free to add them. However, this is with the caveat that I don't know whether these violate WP:FRINGE; I only know that there was previously a consensus against including the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth's UAF report because it was a violation of WP:FRINGE. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

1 Wall Street scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Epicgenius. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Hotel Marseilles

On 26 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hotel Marseilles, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New York City's Hotel Marseilles, once a shelter for Holocaust survivors, later became affordable housing for the elderly? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hotel Marseilles. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hotel Marseilles), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)