User talk:Epicgenius

This is Epicgenius's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83: 7 days

Archives

Archive links by month

Other talk pages:

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Very important userboxes

MORE

This user has more userboxes.

This user has an alternative account named Kylo Ren.

END

This user has no more userboxes.

Top | Talk (new message) | User page | Contribs | User log

Click here to scroll to the bottom of the page.

dyk

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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]

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)[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]

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 ☎

Image question

Hey Epicgenius, sorry to interrupt your vacay. I was wondering if you can assist--I know you've worked with images of buildings a lot. I ran into a problem with a user, in Houston, Georgia; the most detailed explanation of their issue is in this edit summary. I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, thanks for the heads up. Buildings in the United States (but not artwork) have freedom of panorama, so images of them can be freely uploaded to Wikimedia sites. The Commons page about freedom of panorama in the US says: for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. ... For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building.. In other words, provided that a building in the US is photographed from a public place, it is acceptable for an image of it to be published on Wikimedia sites. (Such an image can, however, be deleted if the image itself is a copyright violation.)

However, this isn't a copyright issue, but an issue of whether the image of the house should be on that page. If the user is really insistent that they don't want to have a photograph on that page, perhaps the best thing to do is to open a talk page discussion. I do doubt, however, that "I don't like it" is a winning argument for them. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the quick response! I'll bring that up with them. I was a bit bothered by the attitude and some of the comments--for instance they said the house wasn't even called that, but the NRHP registration says it quite clearly, and that's a source that's pretty reliable. OK, back to your vacation, and thanks again. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I appreciate what you're trying to do in moderating this problem. Admittedly, I am new to Wikipedia editing so I'll concede my efforts have been a bit ham-fisted. However, there is a real problem here. Let me explain what it is.

I myself used to write NR nominations. The quality of NR nominations before the 1980s was often spotty at best. Very few of them were fact-checked by the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer). This one is a particularly egregious example. I asserted my ownership of the house not to have some supra-authoritative claim over the article's existence (with admittedly one exception, see below), but because I know from firsthand sources that the owner at the time the NR nomination was written particularly wished to obscure its true "common name," i.e. "The Boykin House" by appropriating the name of the nearby (then defunct) town of Liberty Hill. The reason for this as well as the effect are both problematic, to wit:

1. At the time the NR nomination was written in 1975 there were still descendants of the enslaved people who built this house living nearby, mostly on land they and their ancestors had once sharecropped as freedmen. In a situation not uncommon in Troup County, Georgia, they had kept the name of their former enslavers and were, therefore, "Boykins". I still know a couple of them. The white owner of the house when the NRHP nomination was written particularly wanted to avoid any association with the black neighbors who (again, I must point out for the sake of sad historical irony) were the descendants of the enslaved people who had built "The Boykin House".

2. Moreover, this type of "name appropriation" is not uncommon in these situations in the South, along with its concomitant phenomenon, "name erasure," in which black settlements were obscured by not including them on maps or in government documents. In this case, it's a combination of the two: the settlement of Liberty Hill (about 3 miles north of the house) was called "Liberty Hill" by the black residents there and "Houston" by the local government and white establishment. (A Liberty Hill had already been incorporated elsewhere in Georgia so even if the residents had agreed on a town name it could never have officially been "Liberty Hill".)

Therefore, ironically, Wikipedia is actually creating a situation of "common naming" a phenomenon that did not have that name before someone uploaded a copy of the NRHP nomination to a crowd-sourced website. We therefore have a tautology: I am being criticized for changing something that is allegedly "common knowledge" even though it was mis-named by a single person and the real "common knowledge" among the people in the area long acknowledged the error. Instead, that knowledge is obscured and erased (all the more problematically in my view since it directly involves African-American history, long misrepresented by the establishment) and we have the authority of a crowd-sourced website insisting that something is true which is not, all for the sake of "authority" that is itself fraudulent.

Finally, please note that nowhere in the NRHP nomination is the name itself documented. There is no footnote or reference in the NRHP nomination itself. I would assert that this omission is still a problem on Wikipedia: any source is good enough; the quality of the sources for a particular source often go unexamined. (You are obviously free to disagree, and I am not trying to denigrate the efforts of all those who try to keep Wikipedia going.) No one doubts that the house was called "The Boykin House". The white Boykins lived there from 1840 until 1922. That is, therefore, its correct name. "Liberty Hill" is not.

I hope you see why the above is problematic and why I have made an effort to change it. As the owner of this house and as someone with training in historical research (and the ethics that accompany it) I believe I had to make an effort to change the entry. If you have a suggestion about how to fix this problem (and the skills I will need to edit the solution) then please suggest them to me. I am not trying to be a problematic Wikipedia contributor, but I am rather frustrated.

Now, I know I will have to accept the photo. I knew it was out there and never liked the fact, but this summer a friend of mine saw it on her airplane seatback screen when she hit "landmarks" on the airline's moving map. Of course, it had been "scraped" from Wikipedia. I defy anyone not to find that a little creepy. Yes, I own the house, but I bought it in 1992 before the "invention" of the internet and the even worse phenomenon of AI. I may have to live with it, but you can't blame me for trying to edit out the photo. If its appearance is part of the merciless, rolling barbarity of the Internet I'll simply have to put up particularly prominent NO TRESPASSING signs. Alas.

However, I don't have to accept mis-representation, all the more so when the platform doing it is ironically creating the very problem that needs to be corrected. I'm assuming you (like me) want the best Wikipedia possible. Again, if you have a suggestion (like a re-titling along the lines of "Boykin House (sic Liberty Hill)" or "(aka Liberty Hill)" I am open to that.

At the very least I've documented my own effort to fix the error. If it's not corrected then it's not my fault.

Thank you. Libertyhellion (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response @Libertyhellion, it is much appreciated. My comment above was primarily in regard to the image, not about the house's NRHP status or its name. I do understand that it might be a bit creepy to have a picture of your house on the internet. However, I'm not sure what recourse is available, given the fact that—unless you live in a gated community, or your house is a mile from the nearest road—your house is visible to everyone. From a copyright standpoint, it is permissible to take an image of a building in the US from a public place and then upload it to Wikipedia.

While I can't look into the broader naming dispute right now, I do recommend that you cross-post this to the article's talk page. I also recommend that you look for any books, websites, newspapers, or other sources that describe your house. Perhaps these sources might refer to your house by another name, in which case the article's name could be changed. Otherwise, Wikipedia has to adhere to the "common name" guideline, which says: Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the helpful response, Epicgenius. I'll take your advice and if i can find a way to document that the preferred common name is "the Boykin House" I'll run that past the moderators. As I mentioned in my long reply I simply want to honor the families, both Black and white, who were the actual builders of the house. Since the town of Liberty Hill was also a Black settlement, I feel like it is a matter of correcting an important historical error.

Thanks again for your reply. Libertyhellion (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies - last night I wrote this very long explanation of my attempts to correct the entry on "Liberty Hill (LaGrange, GA)" - however, I actually sent it to Epicgenius rather than to you, as I had intended. I'm cutting and pasting below. At the very least I wanted to make it clear why I believe the common name issue is important, especially in our area of Georgia where Black history has often been erased or obscured. Text below: