Loading AI tools
'''[[User:Titanosaurus|<span style="color:red;">TITAN</span>]]<u style="color:red;">O</u>[[User talk:Titanosaurus|<span style="color:red;">SAURUS</span>]]''' ~~~~~
Thanks for expanding those articles. It really helped them along.
Chris
Thanks for your contribution, but your change of "Ninth" to "9th" is not correct. Here is a more detailed explanation:
A very long time ago, it was decided to use "First," "Second," etc., in the names of subway stations for avenues and small-numbered streets. Other Wikipedia articles about New York City follow this convention too: for instance, Ninth Avenue (Manhattan). This convention was consistently implemented throughout the encyclopedia. It's a long-standing and widely-accepted consensus.
I sincerely hope you would agree that it makes no sense to change one link in one article, when all the other links, in all the other articles, remain unaltered. Why use "9th" in this article, unless it is done in every other article? And if "Ninth" should be changed to 9th, then Eighth should become 8th, Seventh should be 7th, and so forth. You will quickly discover that it becomes a re-naming project on a vast scale, involving hundreds, and perhaps thousands of articles.
Had I been here at the time, I might well have argued for doing it your way. But I doubt you could get consensus at this late date for changing something so heavily ingrained. If you'd like to try, feel free to post a discussion topic at WT:NYCPT or WT:NYC. Marc Shepherd 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for that little tug-of-war; I think we've reached a satisfactory resolution — you seem to have understood why that photo of the ferry coming into Beacon is in there, and I admit that the newer photo of the ferry does show more of it, even if it's kind of a grim day.
However, you provided a Flickr page for the source. Can you provide the link that shows the full page with all the image data? You stated the picture was PD ... well, Flickr doesn't allow that licensing option. If it's your own photo, you need to license it as either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Those are the only two Flickr license types we're allowed to use for images here. Otherwise, it would have to be deleted. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It is considered edit-war when you do not provide a rationale for your reversion, especially as you have been asked. Please explain your reasoning with regard to the above subject and your reversions at Port of New York and New Jersey, if you have one. Otherwise please refrain from doing so.Djflem (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect M-n cr. Since you had some involvement with the M-n cr redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Train2104 (t • c) 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Your detailed contributions are appreciated, but they are a bit too detailed per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. Consider contributing the information to Transit.wiki instead. James (talk/contribs) 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. I will probably be shortening some of the excessive detail you have added to Oakland Coliseum station. It is okay for a station article to list what bus routes serve it, but it does not need to include full details of where those bus routes go. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- You need to cease adding large amounts of excessively detailed information. I am not out of my mind as you have accused; I am following established policy on Wikipedia, as James already informed you above. Massive lists of bus routes with specific service details on station articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia, even if they have been added to a small number of other articles. You are welcome to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains if you don't believe me.
- You also need to be more careful with how you interpret sources - several details you gave in that article are factually incorrect - and please use citation templates rather than bare links. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- The schematics show both mainline tracks as being part of the Niles Subdivision, not the Coast Subdivision. The sentence about having the QuikTrak machine was factually correct, but an irrelevant level of detail. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - a general overview of many topics - not a travel guide nor a railfan site. I do not appreciate your combative attitude, your accusations of bad faith, nor your unwillingness to discuss this civilly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fine, let's have a discussion.
- OpenRailwayMap and OpenStreetMap both support the information that I included in the article stating that the Western track is part of the Coast Subdivision. Maybe the Coast Starlight deceived you into thinking that the trackage was a part of the Niles Subdivision, but that article's source isn't even up to date, so before you remove that part of the article again or change that part of the article to show all of the trackage belonging to the Niles Subdivision, I would appreciate it if you presented a source that backs that claim up.
- The QuikTrak tidbit is indeed notable since Coliseum is one of the few, if not the only Amtrak station in a major city that sees a considerable about of service, but has no ticketing services on site for whatever reason, and I think that segment of the article would be an interesting and enlightening tidbit of information for anyone to know.
- The reason why I included the public transportation table in the article is because AC Transit designates the Coliseum station as a bus station, and the overwhelming majority of Coliseum passengers arrive to/leave from the station on foot or public transit, much more than most other BART stations in the system outside of San Francisco. In fact the Coliseum station is one of only three BART stations in the East Bay outside of Downtown Oakland that receives frequent 24/7 bus service (the others are Berkeley and Fruitvale), and I think that the table gives insight into where these buses go, how much ridership the lines get, and why those lines get that much ridership and bring that much ridership to the station.
- My bad faith accusation came from some questionable edits that I've seen you make. I think that you have a tendency to focus on aesthetics when editing rather than information, which I think should be the top priority when editing an article.
- In this edit you questionably removed my link to the Bay Farm Island page that informed readers on exactly where the Harbor Bay Business Park is, and changed Route 73 into the nonexistent "Route 77" for a reason I cannot understand.
- In this edit, you questionably removed an informative Platform layout diagram that is standard in many other train station articles (some of which are good articles that have bus tables by the way like Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue and Flushing–Main Street), and once again removed the mentions of Evans Transportation and Sonoma County Airport Express with no rationale to that omission even though I already told you that the two services are public transit options that share a stop with the nearby AC Transit routes.
- If the bus table I put into Coliseum is deemed "excessive" by that WikiProject and removed, then I expect you and the WikiProject you linked to enforce that as soon as possible on every rail station article (including the good articles and featured articles) that have bus tables or other detailed bus connection information in them, or I'm going to seek further input.
- I am willing to discuss this, but I don't think that it should be a discussion in the first place. I am simply adding information about a subject that I know a lot about to an article so I can help others learn more about the subject as well. Aesthetics and loosely enforced arbitrary guidelines shouldn't come in the way of this website's main goal of informing its readers on a variety of subjects as long the edits made to the website are informative and in good faith like my edits. TITANOSAURUS 06:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fine, let's have a discussion.
- The schematics show both mainline tracks as being part of the Niles Subdivision, not the Coast Subdivision. The sentence about having the QuikTrak machine was factually correct, but an irrelevant level of detail. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - a general overview of many topics - not a travel guide nor a railfan site. I do not appreciate your combative attitude, your accusations of bad faith, nor your unwillingness to discuss this civilly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- You also need to be more careful with how you interpret sources - several details you gave in that article are factually incorrect - and please use citation templates rather than bare links. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed several troubling occasions lately where you have acted aggressively - even with hostility - towards other editors (including me). Calling good-faith editing by experienced editors like James Allison "vandalism" is not acceptable, whether you agree with their edits or not. Using the revert function to make minor changes to my edit, and making false claims about me being the one who added incorrect details, is not acceptable. Please be civil, or find another outlet like transit.wiki or local.wiki where you can have more editorial discretion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Titanosaurus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Consensus on multiple discussion pages was very clear that extremely detailed tables of bus transfers are not appropriate, and that airport icons for bus routes are similar not advised. Yet you have decided to edit war about these - your only edits in months. Please cease these ill-advised edits, and retract your personal attack. Your editing behavior is not productive nor acceptable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why have you come back to make these same unproductive edits? If you continue to revert I will seek a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- When and where was this consensus reached on the airplane logo? Also, don't ever post silly empty threats like that on my page again. Dispute my edits with facts, logic, and evidence, not emotional tirades. TITANOSAURUS 20:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- The airport icon is not used on reliable sources like the AC Transit website or schedule, nor the MTC collated schedules. It also does not appear on the sign at the bus stop at Coliseum station, nor at Eastmont, nor at other bus stop signs on the corridor. The only place it appears at all is on rollsigns in one direction only – as part of the destination, not the route number. There is no evidence - much less any reliable sources - to indicate that the official route number is "
73". Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- The airport icon is not used on reliable sources like the AC Transit website or schedule, nor the MTC collated schedules. It also does not appear on the sign at the bus stop at Coliseum station, nor at Eastmont, nor at other bus stop signs on the corridor. The only place it appears at all is on rollsigns in one direction only – as part of the destination, not the route number. There is no evidence - much less any reliable sources - to indicate that the official route number is "
- When and where was this consensus reached on the airplane logo? Also, don't ever post silly empty threats like that on my page again. Dispute my edits with facts, logic, and evidence, not emotional tirades. TITANOSAURUS 20:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Once again, you need to stop taking any disagreement with your edits as a personal insult. Reverting your addition based on policy is not vandalism. As has been explained to you before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that presents an overview of subjects, not a travel guide. The exact details of bus service between two points are not relevant to the history of a station that is one of the endpoints. If you want to write a travel guide with detailed information about how to travel to OAK, Wikivoyage would be thrilled to have your knowledge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Oakland Coliseum station, you may be blocked from editing. Your reverts on Oakland Coliseum station are, once again, not productive. The exact minutiae of the building (ever single entity involved, details of the construction method) are not relevant to the station - only the fact that the building was constructed on the station parking lot is relevant to the station. You have repeatedly added bare-url citations (utterly inappropriate for a GA), as well as a duplicate citation. A number of your changes, like re-italicizing the names of interlockings, are also contrary to the Manual of Style. At this point, given your continued bad edits and blatantly false accusations of vandalism, if you revert even a single more time I will go to AN/I seeking a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to '''[[User:Titanosaurus|<span style="color:red;">TITAN</span>]]<u style="color:red;">O</u>[[User talk:Titanosaurus|<span style="color:red;">SAURUS</span>]]''' ASAP.
The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature.
If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and if that's the case, unfortunately you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Time to stop edit warring: I will not hesitate to block you from editing that article. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Liberty Water Taxi Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Your recent edits to the article are not appropriate. Bare URL citations are not sufficient for any article, much less a good article, and you should follow the citation style already established on the article rather than using a different format. The first link you added is a non-reliable self-published source, and the third is a disallowed citation to Wikipedia itself (and that article doesn't even cite a source re BART). None of the three mention Oakland Coliseum station whatsoever. Please stop your confrontational and unhelpful style of editing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your latest edits and rudeness are equally unhelpful. The sources you are adding do not mention this station, nor do they make any specific claims about the architectural styles of all system stations. (While Radulovich mentions that the early BART stations incorporated "brutalist vernacular", he does not claim it was the primary style for all of them, nor would that be remotely correct.) Unless you can find and properly cite a reliable source that says that this specific station is brutalist in design, that claim does not belong in the article. If you continue to edit war to add unverified claims and unformatted citations, I will seek a block to end the disruption.
- I would also recommend that you reconsider your underlying claim that the station is primarily brutalist in design. Features such as the colored metal canopy and brightly-painted pedestrian tunnel are typical of late modernism/early postmodernism but atypical of brutalism. Brutalism is not just a catchall term for architecture that heavily uses concrete; it is a specific style with specific hallmarks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
