User talk:Epicgenius - Wikipedia

Click here to scroll to the bottom of the page.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 ☎

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

@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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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

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

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

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

• 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

• 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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch for issues which need to be addressed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dclemens1971 -- Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the bot error is now fixed and you can remove the {{bots}}; of course put it back if the bot continues to try to post to your talk page. At least two things caused problems here:

• The review was changed to onhold without a GA subpage having been created
• The note was changed to include text that had pipe symbols which probably prevented the bot from understanding the template and reading the status

As it turns out there was also a bug that caused the bot to crash when you added {{bots}} to your talk page! That at least was easy to fix. I can't easily track down the error without recreating the original situation with a test case GA review, and I don't have time to do that at the moment. I will add a note to my to-do list about this one and see if I can get to it later this year. Thanks for the heads up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation @Mike Christie. I apologize for accidentally crashing the bot by putting {{bots}} on my talk page (I wouldn't have done it if I knew, but I've removed it now). I'm glad to hear that you have been able to fix the error. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No apology needed -- the bot is supposed to be able to handle that situation and failed to, but it was an easy fix. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch for comments about the article, and Talk:Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dclemens1971 -- Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Tiffany & Co. flagship store you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Tiffany & Co. flagship store for comments about the article, and Talk:Tiffany & Co. flagship store/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have lost multiple images of stations (of which there are a limited number) since a user is overzealously deleting any images that have any small feature that might be copyrighted (it goes well beyond transit). There would be no images of Times Square if FOP was interpreted this way. Is there anything you think can be done about this? Thanks. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oof, yeah, that is pretty annoying. Awesome Aasim said in one of these discussions that "I'd say just blur out the billboard and call it a day." I agree, and I think it may be worth asking the Commons administrator if they'd be willing to reinstate a censored version of the picture. I notice that a few of these deleted images are by @Jim.henderson; if he still has the originals for File:Wakefield IRT term jeh.JPG and File:Culver Line over 4th jeh.JPG, maybe he might be willing to blur out the pictures in question and reupload them. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There goes another two. Nearly all entrance photos, since they have ads, will likely be wiped in this purge. I think that even censoring them is ridiculous-you don't see news agencies like the Times doing it when an ad happens to be in the background of a photo of a crime scene, a parade, or any other event. This little stuff-missing the spirit of the rules on the books-is why so many people give up or don't even start editing Wikipedia. This helps no one, and, no, Sketchers will not sue us if an ad of theirs from 2008 is in a photo of an entrance to a station. I doubt this is winnable though. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kew Gardens 613, sadly the user is correct with regard to advertisements. These do have copyright protection in the US. The only remedies are to blur or crop out the advertisements, neither of which is ideal, but at least someone would be able to claim that the entrances are the main subject of the image and that the advertisements are shown in a de minimis way. You could alternatively ask the user, who is nominating the images for deletion, to slow down the pace of their nominations. Epicgenius (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

yeah looks like I must learn the software that blurs pictures.Lately I've been snapping directly from Commons App which doesn't provide for any processing. I crop and sometimes rotate in Commons which seems to be most of what is available there Jim.henderson (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It appears the template was rightly flagged for the colored bullets-should we finally revert this back? Thanks. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up @Kew Gardens 613, but I disagree that the template is over colored. These are the real-life route emblems, and I don't quite see how they violate MOS:COLOR; the rest of the navbox is in compliance with that guideline. However, if you want, you can change these to regular links. Epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I saw you listed as a member of WP:ARCH and, based on your interest in buildings, thought you'd be interested in some ideas about how to restructure the page for CoStar Group who deals with real estate analytics. Because I have a COI, I put my suggested edits in this conversation. If you have a chance to read it over and you agree that it improves the article, I'd appreciate you implementing it.

Thank you so much for your help, Hbensur (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has come to a close! After a thrilling finish to the event with a slew of submissions on the final day, we have our winners. With 608 points,     Thebiguglyalien (submissions) comes in third with his series of Kiribati and Botswanan submissions;     BeanieFan11 (submissions) flies into second place at the last second with 771 points after a string of good articles about sportspersons; and after leading for much of contest's three months,     Generalissima (submissions) finishes with a whopping 798 points to take home the Gold Belt Buckle. Congratulations to our winners!

In addition to his spot in the top three,   BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins the special awards for submitting under the most countries (44 countries) and for writing the most articles about women (15 Did you know? nominations)!   Magentic Manifestations (submissions), after making 16 submissions under the Indian flag—15 of them good articles—receives the awards for most submissions for a single country and most featured or good articles promoted. For their submission of one FAC review, five FLC reviews, and 20 GAN reviews, Simongraham (submissions) wins for most article reviews.

The results of the contest have far exceeded any expectations the coordinators had for it at the beginning: among the submissions to the event were 3 FAs, 10 FLs, 88 GAs, dozens of article reviews of every kind, and more Did you know? submissions than we can count! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that...

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply