User talk:Lost on Belmont/Archive 1

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Lost on Belmont, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Television Radio

Just thought you would like to know that our mutual online acquaintance, and outspoken online advocate of bad grammar (was/were, The/the, etc), User:Television Radio, will not be editing any articles for the next 2 weeks. If you see him repeating his previous actions, please feel free to report him at WP:AIV. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a 31 hr reprieve, while his IP address is blocked from editing. I have reported him for sockpuppetry, feel free to comment on his investigation here Thank you for your continual efforts in helping combat this onslaught of "Bad Grammar" vandalism. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened another SPI on him, your comments on this persistent vandal would be greatly appreciated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Television Radio. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For continuing to fight the "Bad Grammar" IP vandal attacking the CTA articles Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Road Metra Station reconstruction

My apologies regarding the edit on Dee Road (Metra) station. I must've got what little info I had on the 2007 reconstruction from an earlier version of Metra's website. Judging by what I've seen on Google Maps StreetView program, it must've been a reconstruction of the parking lot. ----DanTD (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Central Electric

Hoi. Why was the ICE not an interurban? It is listed in Hilton&Due (p. 346) and it used some streetcar-like equipment. Greetings, --Thogo (Talk) 17:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Illinois Central Electric (which is today's Metra Electric Line) was a steam railroad that was electrified due to pollution concerns (soot and such) from wealthier people along Chicago's lakefront. It was never really anything like an interurban except for the fact that it was electrified. The rest of the Illinois Central Railroad remained steam and so did the freight trains that operated over the line as well as longer distance passenger trains. Lost on Belmont (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry, but the Illinois Central Electric Railway (~~there is no article about it on enwiki~~ Illinois Central Electric Railway ;) ) was situated west of Peoria IL, their route went from Lewistown to Farmington with a branch to Fairview. I don't see how they were even close to the Chicago lakeside. Was there another railway with that name? --Thogo (Talk) 21:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CTA Buses at L & Metra stations

I see you think that the wikilinks to the CTA bus connections at L-stations, should be converted to List of Chicago Transit Authority bus routes. Good. So do I, and I also think they should be converted for Metra stations. If there were a separate page for CTA's bus divisions, I'd say it would be converted to that instead. As it stands now, I strongly encourage the edits you made with Damen (CTA Brown Line). ----DanTD (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the pages it just didn't make sense that all of the "Bus Connections" should be links to Chicago Transit Authority when the bus routes page was far more pertinent. After all, when discussing the 'L', you don't link to CTA, you link to Chicago 'L'. Also I noticed that there was some inconsistency in the bus links (some had just "bus" linked, others had "CTA," others still had both) and I was trying to add consistency. Completely agree with the linking of Metra stations. Lost on Belmont (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well as with any regional railroad and mass transit system, not all connections are the same, hence the lack of consistency. ----DanTD (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd Grammar Edits

Sorry about the "grammar correction" on the Pink Floyd article. I'm so American English-centric that I didn't think about the article using British English. I also had no idea that they styled their plurals and sigulars differently from us Americans.

FYI, I'm "lost on Damen" (Bowmanville)

Dkelber (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize; I'm an American as well. I don't get the whole plurals thing in British English either but this has happened numerous times on the Pink Floyd article. I just happened to catch it first. Lost on Belmont (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking

Thanks for picking up on that on the HO scale page. I didn't realize that the policy had moved on until I saw your edits and researched it. --Badger151 (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. That's one reason why I started using the wikilink in my edit summaries. Lost on Belmont (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'll save me a bit of work going forward (and I had long thought that ubiquitous linking of dates was - uh, silly). --Badger151 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Road/World's Fair station

I wrote to Metra about Roosevelt Road and Ogilvie Transportation Center. In the reply about Roosevelt Road I got this;

"I'd say you're right about Roosevelt, now Museum Campus, being the "World's Fair Station." (That would have been the 1933 fair.)

But the Columbian Exposition Terminal Station was actually located on the grounds of the 1893 fair in Jackson Park on the south side. It was demolished after the fair, like most of the rest of the fair buildings. You can see it on old maps of the fairgrounds.
Michael Gillis"

However, considering what I've read about Roosevelt/Wabash (CTA), it would make more sense for that to be "World's Fair Station." ----DanTD (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ended up deleting the information you added to Roosevelt was primarily because of the reference you cited. The map was one for the North Shore Line. Aside from the similarity in name to the South Shore Line and that both had been formerly owned by Samuel Insull, these two lines never shared any trackage or stations. The closest they got was when the North Shore Line operated over the South Side "L" to Dorchester, which was right next to the Illinois Central's 63rd Street station. The North Shore Line operated on "L" trackage from 1919 until it quit in '63. It just wouldn't have made sense for the North Shore to be advertising for a station on another railroad's line. (Also, if you look at the map, you can see the line shown is on the "L".) Lost on Belmont (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going on what I got from Metra. If it's wrong, it's wrong. You do make a good point about the fact that the North Shore Line was an "L," which Roosevelt/Wabash is. Maybe the info should be written into that article somehow. Have you considered an article on the 1893 Columbian Exposition Terminal Station? I figure somebody who's actually from Chicago might know it better than I would. ----DanTD (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intent to place blame or point fingers about the information. I was merely trying to explain. And I'd be willing to work on Columbian Expo station, but I don't really know much about it. My knowledge of Chicago railroad history is focused on the electric lines (mainly the "L", Chicago Aurora & Elgin, and the North Shore Line). I actually know more about the "L" station that served the fairgrounds than the big station. Lost on Belmont (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French CTA Wiki-articles

A lot of French versions of wikipedia articles on Chicago L stations have more detail to them. Have you considered transferring them to the main Wiki-sites on these articles? ----DanTD (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former CA&E stations

There have to be more than two former Chicago, Aurora, and Elgin Stations out there. Do you know of any others besides the two that are presently categorized? ----DanTD (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, those two pages are the only ones on Wikipedia. (A complete listing of CA&E stations is available [here].) There are others around that would fall into the category but are currently only red links. Here's a complete listing of all current CA&E red links:

Also, since you're here, if you look at the List of closed Chicago 'L' stations you'll see that the stations on the Garfield Park and Westchester lines Central&emdash;25th (inclusive) don't have opening dates. I've left these out for now because all of these stations started off as CA&E stations but later became "L" stations and I'm still not sure if this list should give dates based on "L" service alone or if it should be service in general. Lost on Belmont (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Ardmore and Villa Avenue stations already have images that are on the DuPage County NRHP list. They look like they might be ripe for articles with that category. Maybe I can suggest them for WikiProject NRHP. ----20:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE - Looks like I took you out of two jobs, because I just wrote articles for Ardmore Avenue and Villa Avenue stations today. Of course, any additional info from those who know the area better is always a good idea. ----DanTD (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lost on Belmont. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost on Belmont, please help me configure the "CTA Gray Line" article so it is OK to post, What is the conflict of interest you implied?

Mike Payne (773) 787-8078 you can call me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CTAGrayLineProject (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland (CTA)

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I commend you on your editorial contributions. Please post this on your user page.

This user helped promote Cumberland (CTA) to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oakton-Skokie station

Hi, I'm thinking that the old Oakton station and the new Oakton-Skokie station are not really the same thing and so would be better split into two articles. What do you think? —Jeremy (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much of the opinion that the old and new Oakton stations are (in spite of the totally ridiculous name being slapped on) the same station and should have the same page. While the new station is being built at a location where there is no station, it is the same location as a station on the predecessor line. Just because there is time separating the two stations, it is really the same as the old and new Damen stations, for instance. At the groundbreaking ceremony (which I attended) the station was constantly being described in reference to the previous station on the site and several of Skokie's elected officials spoke as if the village was getting the station back. Evanston is now trying to do the same with either Ridge, Asbury or Dodge and their efforts are very much described as a reinstation of service.

Thanks, for asking though! Lost on Belmont (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Not sure I agree, but it's a minor point.—Jeremy (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elmhurst Metra and CTA Blue Line expanstion

Hey, that was a funny reply to the vandalism of the Elmhurst (Metra) station article. I wonder what kind of drugs made this editor believe such garbage. While you're at it, could you fix some of the material I swiped from French Wikipedia articles on a few CTA Blue Line stations? I've hidden them in about four tonight, but there's one I tried to take care of myself, and I'm pretty sure I did a crappy job with it. ----DanTD (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard comments related to the topic of "trains and the moon" while riding the Red Line before, but never any in relation to Metra. (The only thing I've experienced as being "out there" on Metra is beging hit on by drunk guys. I'll take the supposed flattery, but no thanks guys. I'm not gay.)

As far as the CTA station articles, I've gone ahead and fixed up Washington/Dearborn (CTA station) as per your suggestion, but my intended focus right now is to bring Austin (CTA Green Line station) up to GA standards and to make List of Chicago 'L' stations a featured list. If anyone wants to help with that, I'd welcome it. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8th Doctor

Type the story Doctor Who The Cyber Seas of Rhye,the 1st episode, into the internet and you'll sea how popular it is.All you have to type into google is Doctor Who The Cy before it comes up 3rd on the list way before you've even typed the whole thing in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.252.244 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Capitini

Text you removed was added in good faith - let's be constructive - see article's talk page. Marshall46 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on your photos at commons (Zol87)

Thank You for looking out for me. I really appreciate it. I will investigate and take the proper course of action. -Zol87

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of former Chicago 'L' stations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Park, Chicago (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) 11:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

You are probably edit warring at Masturbation. It more seems like a content dispute. If the Anon is a sock he will soon be blocked for disruptive editing and violating WP:3RR. So stay cool! --SMS ^Talk 16:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute. User:Picker78 has been banned and repeatedly come back under various IPs and usernames. I'm reporting him now. (He doesn't even deny who he is.) Thanks for the warning, though. Lost on Belmont (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like a content dispute but you are right I was wrong in judging it. And that wasn't at all a warning (you may call it a reminder, as Regulars are not warned). Regards and Happy Editing! --SMS ^Talk 03:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jeff Park Transit Center

Okay, I understand your reasoning. But I put the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad markings for the original opening date of the current Metra portion, because that was who I thought the original builder was. Recent research has lead me to realize it was built by the C&NW's predaccessor the Chicago, St. Paul and Fond du Lac Railroad, and I should probably change that as the original builder, and leave C&NW for the 1958 reconstruction. For the record, is CStP&F the right reporting mark for the Chicago, St. Paul and Fond du Lac? ----DanTD (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation

Could we put Freud's views in the article?--RJR3333 (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picker78 again

Heads up, just in case you're no longer watching the article. He's back at the Non-penetrative sex article. I've already alerted MuZemike about it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Flyer22 would probably like to have (non-)penetrative sex with that Picker78. 79.107.49.18 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, Lost on belmont. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-penetrative sex

Since he's back again, will you report him again? Or get the article locked again? 23.29.124.109 (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Speedy deletion nomination of Gold Line (CTA)

For your information, I added a source to that article and you should have looked at before you nominated my article for deletion!! That kinda makes me upset that you keep removing my information and I don't like that at all! That article was made from my sandbox and I'm glad I kept it since you deleted my article! You should read stuff before you decide to get rid of it, okay?! I don't like to be mean, but that really hurts me!! OZODOR (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize if I've upset you as this was never my intention. And for the record (I apologize in advance if this seems rude) but I did not delete your article. I'm just a regular Wikipedia user like you and I don't have the power to delete articles. What I did was nominate your article for speedy deletion (I only listed it as a "hoax" because that's the closest criteria on WP for this kind of thing and I know that was not your intention). Nominating an article only puts it on a list for other people who do have the power to delete. They review the article and any information given why the page should be deleted and then delete the article or keep the article depending on the case. In this case, the article was deemed to be untrue and deleted for the reasons I stated.

I always read references to make sure I'm not going to start talking out of my ass before doing something drastic. In this instance, the article you cited did refer to a potential "CTA Gold Line," but this proposed line bore no resemblance to the one you described in your article. The Gold Line discussed in your source talked about modifying the existing Metra Electric District South Chicago service to operate more frequently (like the 'L') and also use CTA fare media.

The only mention of a Gold Line like the one you described here on Wikipedia was in the comments section and was made on July 28 of this year, more than a year after the article was published. Given the level of detail that matched your Gold Line, I assume that was your comment.

The problems with the article you moved into mainspace (having your article in your sandbox is totally fine, by the way!) was that no one had ever discussed your line but you (I actually keep a close eye on potential future rapid transit lines in Chicago). This is a problem for Wkikpedia as the encyclopedia strives for verifiability. Without reliable sources (like the CTA for instance) there's nothing to back up the claim that it is true. This can often lead to original research which is frowned upon around these parts. Once an article is in mainspace it comes off as "fact." When "fact" and "reality" disagree, an article has a problem.

I think the biggest issue here that I need to address, though, is that you feel like I'm hounding you. (If you read my explanation and still feel this way you can take your case to the Administrators' noticeboard.) I am not "out to get you." I do have a tendency to patrol/police the Chicago 'L' articles for content. Like any new editor, you've made "good edits" and edits that weren't so good. The good edits I'll sometimes try to polish or won't touch them. The one's that aren't so good, I'll revert (if the edit in question isn't fixable to improve the article) or I'll rewrite (if the concept was there but wasn't presented in the right way.)

So far, you've made both kinds of edits. There have been plenty of edits you've made that I haven't touched because I haven't needed to. On the other hand, there are some edits you've made that have made an article a little less clear so I've changed them. For instance you recently did some work with former station tables on the different lines. This would have been a good edit (you did a kick ass job with the Wikitables—it took me a while to get those to come out right) except for the fact that by removing them from the overall station listing, you removed some geographic information. (Clark, for example, was clearly between the Addison and Belmont stations in the old way, but with your way you'd have to consult a map to get that.)

However, I think the best examples are the Ravenswood branch and North Side Main Line articles. One I nominated for a merge, the other I didn't. There was nothing wrong with the Ravenswood article per se, but on Wikipedia we don't make "sub" articles of a topic until we have enough information in the main article that it just becomes too much to read. At this point we create the sub article and go into more detail. The problem here was that the Ravenswood branch article barely had any information in it, and all of it was already in the Brown Line article itself. The Brown Line article is light in word count anyway and needs to be beefed up.

Now let's look at North Side Main Line (CTA). This article is still around and I haven't nominated it for deletion or merging. It needs work to meed Wikipedia's quality standards, but there's no reason to get rid of it or "undo" it, so I haven't. After all, where would it go? Brown? Red? Purple? No place seems to fit for it best, so it's a good standalone article. Yes, I did do a few things to it a while back, but that wasn't to "get you." That was only because I saw a good article in the making that needed some fixing to make it better.

I hope this clears things up. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize, but I just felt kinda misunderstood, which made me upset. I apologize for my attitude, but I can't control my anger at times! OZODOR (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Red Line (CTA): Revision history

What do you mean by "move section to history," because I am "Lost on belmont!!" (it was a referring joke to your name) OZODOR (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chicago 'L' dates

At least that suggests the date in the list is right, though I would like to find a more exact reference. I actually ran into the same problem with Oak Park; I found a Tribune article about a crash on January 30, 1901, that said the new stations opened "about a week ago". TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago 'L' stations at WP:FLC

Hello, there are a number of unresolved comments at the above. Could you address them, or would you rather archive the nomiation? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page move question

Please come to the article's talk page to educate me about this move. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neon sign at LaSalle Street Station

I saw an image from the LaSalle Street Station gallery, that still contained relics of the pre-Amtrak, railroad era. I'm pretty sure I've seen this before, but today I just had to ask about it.---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Welcome back to Wikipedia! You've been gone for quite some time now, I thought you were in a retirement stage or something! Chicago Wiz 20:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part I am retired. When they first announced the Dan Ryan thing, I made up two route templates (one for Red, one for Green), but then I left. Now that the Howard-Englewood/Lake-Jackson Park routes are in effect, I figured I'd finish what I'd started. And since I was here I also saw a few things on my baby that needed some minor correction.

You'll note that on the Green Line template I removed the construction symbol for Washington/Wabash and Cermak when I updated the templates. This wasn't an accident. Since no physical work has started on either of these stations, they aren't "under construction." I'd suggest waiting until construction crews start laying steel or when CTA officially breaks ground on each before putting those back, otherwise the symbols are misleading. I'd also say the same for the proposed Dan Ryan extension stations.

I'm probably going to disappear again, but I do stop by every two months or so, just to poke around. If you need to contact me for any reason, you can drop me a line here. Have fun! Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'L' stations list

I noticed you reverted the edit in List of Chicago 'L' stations that put all the stations in alphabetical order. I think the current order of stations is very confusing the average reader. It does not look like the stations are in any sort of order and seems like they are "randomly" sorted by line. I know they are in order by the way they appear on each line, but I think that we should leave that order on the maps if users want to see that. I've been slowly working to get the list to FL status and other featured station lists have all the stations in alphabetical order with a {{Compact ToC}} template at the top for easy navigation. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a good long time working to get that thing to FL status. The only thing that held it back was the lead and the fact that all stations aren't referenced with reliable sources. (Unfortunately Chicago-L.org isn't a reliable source.) I don't see what the point of putting the stations in alphabetical order is when we have the sort function on the table that does that anyway. That's the very reason I made the thing sortable in the first place. If you take the current order out you're limiting the readability of the list. If you want to see them in line order, you can do that now. If you want them in alphabetical order, all you have to do is click the word "station" in the table. Voila! You have both orders easily accessible.Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if List of Metra stations was ordered the same way as the 'L' stations page. If it was, whatever is decided for List of Chicago 'L' stations may apply to that article as well. BMacZero (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Metra list was created with the same order as the 'L' list for the same reason. Right now, if someone clicks on the "station" tab to sort the table, nothing appears to happen. It only becomes apparent if someone clicks a second time. Having it work this way makes the table look broken to the average reader. Yes, the maps and route diagrams can tell someone the order of stations, but that involves leaving a page and then coming back which is far less convenient. As I've already stated, it makes more sense to me to have both options available, but I'm just one (semi-retired) person. I agree with you that, whatever the outcome, they should both have the same order format. If it is deemed that they're better off locked in the alphabetical/reverse alphabetical format then so be it.Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{cta}} template

I thought this might be useful to you. Useddenim (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New icon(s)

(RP4+4yvRP2): Would this (and its mirrors and rotations) be useful for you? If so I’ll create the other seven. Useddenim (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are already some diagonal pieces so these would indeed be useful as more elegant replacements for some of the things I have now. Thanks and thanks for the CTA station template. Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glenview station

Glenview (Amtrak Station) should have been moved to lower case Glenview (Amtrak station) per naming convention. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. This is what happens when you simply change "Railroad" to "Amtrak" and then wrap in parenthesis instead of just fixing the damn thing outright. Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go with the renaming campaign anyhow. There is one that you forgot about though (Western Avenue (BNSF Railway Line)). Are you debating whether or not to add 18th Place into the name, or is there some other reason you haven't done it yet? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was intentional, and was actually a last minute thought. It actually has to do with six stations: Lake Forest (Metra Milwaukee District/North station), Lake Forest (Metra Union Pacific/North station), Prairie Crossing (Metra Milwaukee District/North station), Prairie Crossing (Metra North Central station), Western Avenue (BNSF Railway Line), and Western Avenue (Metra Milwaukee District station). The main thing is the inclusion or exclusion of "Service" or "Line" from the titles. I don't know what the conventions are regarding this, but I do know that with the Chicago "L" articles, the titles conform to "(CTA ___ Line station)." This is somewhat complicated because of the way Metra titles their lines: "BNSF Railway," "Heritage Corridor," "Metra Electric District," "Milwaukee District / North Line," "Milwaukee District / West Line," "North Central Service," "Rock Island District," "SouthWest Service," "Union Pacific / North Line," "Union Pacific / Northwest Line," and "Union Pacific / West Line."

After thinking about it for a while, my thoughts were to move the Lake Forest stations to (Metra Milwaukee District / North Line station) and (Metra Union Pacific / North Line station), the Prairie Crossing stations to (Metra Milwaukee District / North Line station) and (Metra North Central Service station), leave the Milwaukee District Western alone, and move the BNSF station to (Metra BNSF Railway station). This seems most logical, but still would look wrong because of the missing "Line" or "Service" for the BNSF station. (This would occur with moving the Milwaukee District and UP lines to "... / North Line," "Union Pacific / Northwest Line," and "... / West Line."

Then again, it may be correct to omit the whole "Line/Service" bit altogether for true naming conformity. What do you think? Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endling

Category:Endling, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Loop 1993-1997

Re this edit, how is it possible to have a cross-platform interchange between elevated and subway tracks? Useddenim (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: it isn't. The station in question is actually a combined subway/elevated station where one can transfer from elevated trains to subway trains without ever leaving a paid area (unlike at State/Lake and at Library). I know there are BL icons, but the documentation mentions them being outside of a paid area. Additionally, on the catalog, CPIC icons are in a table labeled "Linkway between stations." From what I've seen, CPIC seems to only be loosely used for cross-platform interchanges. I'd prefer it to be strictly for that (how does one have a CPIC at a right angle anyway?) but so far (as far as I know) we don't have a more appropriate icon set to describe physically connected stations with the connection inside of a paid area. If you have any ideas I'd love to hear them. Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{BS-map|map=
{{BS7-2|uhCONTfa|uhCONTg||||utCONTg||| }}
{{BS9-2|WASSERq|uhWSTR|uhWSTR|WASSERq|WASSERq|WASSERq|utWSTR|WASSERq|WASSERq|||[[Chicago River]]|[[Chicago River]]}}
{{BS9-2|uhCONTgq|uhKRZh|lhSTRl-L|O3=lhKRZhc3|O32=lhKRZhc4|O33=lhKRZhc2|O34=uKRZl|uhSTRgq|uhBHFq|O5=lINT-Rq|uhSTRgq|utKRZh|O7=lINT-Rq|O72=HUBa|uhkSTR2+r|uhkSTRc3|{{cta|Clark/Lake}}|{{cta|State/Lake}} }}
{{BS9-2|uhCONTfaq|lhKRZhc4|O2=lhKRZhc3|O22=lhKRZhc2|O23=lhSTRl-L|O24=uKRZl|lhSTR+l-L|O3=lhKRZhc3|O32=lhKRZhc14|O33=uKRZ+l|uhSTRfq|uhBHFq|O5=lINT-Mq|O52=lACC|uhSTRfq|utKRZh|O7=lINT-Lq|O72=HUB|hkSTR-c1|O8=uhSTR+r|uhkSTR+4||}}
{{BS9-2||uehBHF|uehBHF|utCONTgq|utBHFq|O5=lINT-Lq|utSTR+r|utINT|O7=HUBe|uhSTRf|uhSTRg|{{cta|Randolph/Wells}} }}
{{BS9-2||uhSTRf|uhSTRg|||utCONTf|utCONTf|uhBHF|O8=ulBHF-L|uhBHF|O9=ulBHF-R||{{cta|Randolph/Wabash}} }}
{{BS9-2||uhBHF|O2=lINT-L|O22=lACCfq|uhBHF|O3=lINT-R|O32=lACCgq|||||uhSTRf|uhSTRg|{{cta|Washington/Wells}} }}
{{BS9-2||uehBHF|uehBHF|||||uhBHF|O8=ulBHF-L|uhBHF|O9=ulBHF-R|{{cta|Madison/Wells}}|{{cta|Madison/Wabash}} }}
{{BS9-2||uhSTRf|uhSTRg|||||uhBHF|O8=lINT-L|uhBHF|O9=lINT-R||{{cta|Adams/Wabash}} }}
{{BS9-2||uhBHF|O2=ulBHF-L|uhBHF|O3=ulBHF-R|||||uhSTRf|uhSTRg|{{cta|Quincy}} }}
{{BS9-2||uhSTR2|uhSTRc3|O3=uhSTRl|uhBHFq|O4=ulBHF-Rq|uhSTRq|uhSTRgq|uhSTRq|lhSTRr-R|O8=lhSTR2-L|O82=lhKRZhc3|O83=uABZgr|O84=uSTR2+r|uhABZg3|}}
{{BS9-2||uhSTRc1|uhSTRl+4|uhBHFq|O4=ulBHF-Lq|uhSTRq|uhSTRfq|uhSTRq|lhSTR+1-L|O8=lhKRZhc3|O82=lhKRZhc4|O83=uSTR|O84=uSTRr+1|uhABZg+4|{{cta|LaSalle/Van Buren}} }}
{{BS9-2||||||||uhCONTf|uhCONTge||}}
}}

Hmm… You’re right about the documentation, but much of the usage that I’ve seen (primarily for systems in the Far East) is

(BL) for inside and

(GRZ) for outside. CPIC usage tends to vary from country to country; for example, UK railways tend to be strict about their usage (and, BTW, Baker Street (London Underground) does have a (nearly) 90° cross-platform interchange between the Metropolitan and Circle lines).

But I digress. The reworked diagram to the right is one possibility. It’s been over a decade since I was last in Chicago, and I don’t remember which Loop stations one could change from platform to platform without having to leave the fare-paid area, so I arbitrarily assumed the two closed Wells ones. If you choose to go this route (pardon the pun), I’ll bang out the needed INT & ACC icons over the weekend. Useddenim (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you were planning on making these icons anyway, I wouldn't go nuts on this just yet. At one point the platforms on the stations were extended so much that they ended up spanning entire sides of the structure. Doing your suggestion in combination with what I was planning, would effectively create long thick blocks in some instances. While I'm not saying I won't go your suggested route, I will say at this point that I might not do it. I need to think about it some more. It is a good thing to point out since there are several stations in the "L" diagrams that currently use CPICs where there is no cross-platform interchange, there is actually a tunnel. I'll have to fix those.

While I like the concept of using

(GRZ) for physical connections outside of a paid area, I don't see it as being any different that using CPICs. They're both icons that are intended to represent something else. Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take a look at Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 1, for example. The

(BL) and

(GRZ) icons are (re)defined at the top of the diagram, and the various inter-station connection are quite clear. (There’s also a canal diagram that uses

(GRZ) as an underground feeder, and it’s specifically called out on the row where it’s used; so an icon is whatever it’s designated to be as long as it’s (non-standard) meaning is clearly marked.) I’m not sure what the platform extensions have to do with anything: we’re not working at the level of detail that every cross-street is illustrated, so a single

(uhBHF) or

(uhINT) should be sufficient for each station. Useddenim (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The platform extensions are to illustrate another change in the Loop, namely that at one point some platforms were lengthened to the point that multiple stations were effectively only one station with multiple stopping and boarding points. (It'll make total sense when I get around to making that one.) But I think I've got a way to use your method in conjunction to that I'm picturing without losing coherency, so I'm going to go ahead and start making some of the changes now. Thanks! Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of former Chicago 'L' stations 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:

|[{{cta|Douglas Park}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Union Elevated Railroad; Chicago vs. Brooklyn

I know that User:TheCatalyst31 created the Fifth/Lake (Union Elevated Railroad station) article, but since you're a lot closer to the Chicago area, and you've worked on it yourself, I recently found some articles for the Union Elevated Railroad that have turned up on some former Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation related articles. Since it's highly unlikely that the two companies are one in the same, I've split off the Brooklyn-related ones onto a separate dab redlink. I don't know if you intend to do anything with the Chicago-related one though. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of doing anything with Chicago's Union Elevated Railroad other than mention it/describe its function in the Loop article. It was one of (if memory serves) three companies created to construct sections of the Loop. Someone down the line may wish to go into detail about it, but as of right now everything for that "railroad" belongs in the Loop article. Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The L" logo

So The L Logo's not legit? Too bad. It looks authentic. Maybe CTA should contact the user who created it, and adopt it for themselves. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks authentic, but that's because the user took the current CTA meatball and changed the wording to "the 'L'." CTA used to have (for a while) a logo for the "L" system, which you can see used at Chicago-l.org, but it didn't last long. Shame. Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ebay auction

See CTA Elevated Train Chicago Street Scene Cars MoW Crew 1978 Original Photo Slide. The Epicurean Restaurant visible in the lower right corner was at 316 S. Wabash. Useddenim (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am new to this. You helped me with that yellow line template issue. Anyways, I wanted to say I love your profile, I am a railfan myself, and love modest mussorgsky. Beyond that, I feel unproductive currently, so if you could give me a project or a few articles to work on, I would be greatful. thanks. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what articles you should work on greatly depends on what your interests are. You say you're a railfain. What railroads are you interested in? Lost on Belmont^3200N_1000W (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have a great interest in anything Chicago related. I might try to expand Metra stubs and CTA ones. Perhaps I could go to Harold Washington and look for something to write about. Thanks. Again feel free to send me anything. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CTA Pink Line map

Hello there. I have colorized the map for Template:Pink Line (CTA). However, I temporarily left the Blue Line on the map with the standard "u" blue BSicons (rather than the lighter specialized "blue" BSicons), since not all of the map elements are available in the specialized blue BSicons. I have created some of the missing pink BSicons to complete the main segment of the map. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. I've also been preparing a colorized map, as can be seen here. Just a few heads ups. Elevated "structure" elements are now 50px wide, as opposed to 60px, as established here. Older icons are in the process of being converted. Also, there may be an issue with the direction and naming of the single direction icons you created. If you take hSTRl, for instance, it points one way, but STRl points in the opposite direction. The current convention is that "l" means right (or "track left") while "r" means left (or "track right"). I'll open a discussion on this issue shortly because I was planning on changing the direction of the hSTR and uhSTR (and now hSTR pink) sets. Lost on Belmont^3200N_1000W (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:North Side Main Line

Template:North Side Main Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Useddenim (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Route proper names

Lost, I'd like to learn more about why things like West–South Route are considered proper names. I did check sources, and found quite a few of the CTA's own docs and others use lowercase route, and some other official public docs like this one lowercase the whole thing. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you lowercase "route" as from what I'm seeing, CTA didn't remain constant with that. However, the majority of the rest seems pretty consistent with uppercase North-South, West-Northwest, and West-South. The public maps I have in my collection have uppercase directions as do the employee maps my father has in his (left over from his days there). Versions of some of the public maps can be seen here. Also, most of the links provided in your search (for me anyway) seem to capitalize the directions. Lost on Belmont^3200N_1000W (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi. You seem to be a CTA expert so I figure you might be able to answer this question. I'm planning on updating all the ridership stats for the CTA stations soon and adding a traffic rank, similar to the New York City Subway infoboxes. The Chicago L page says there are 145 stations in operation, but I've counted several times and I've only found 143. Is this because certain stations are double-counted? (For the purposes of my count, I regarded Clark/Lake and Roosevelt each as a single station, and regarded State/Lake elevated and Lake subway as a separate stations). Thanks! Altamel (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is no easy question to answer as it seems CTA keeps changing this around. One thing that is certain is that State/Lake and Lake are definitely separate stations, so no problems there. Taking a quick look I see that CTA's "Facts at a Glacne" says both 145 and 146. (I assume this error is due to the closure of Madison/Wabash and was missed in the updating.) In the past I think they'd considered Clark/Lake to be one station and Roosevelt to be either one or two stations, but it looks like as of right now they're considering them to be separate stations which results in the 143 you counted (and so did I) plus 2.

But things get weirder. Looking at the ridership numbers, they don't count the stations separately. Also, if you go to CTA's individual station information pages, both are again counted as single stations. So to answer your question regarding of whether there are 143 or 145 stations: the answer is "yes." (Although it looks like for your purposes, the answer is 143. Perhaps a note on the numerical discrepancy may be in order.) This is yet another reason why the Chicago Transit Authority is a really crappy organization. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! Altamel (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A request!

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I really liked what you've done with the {{Dallas Streetcar}} route map!... In that vein, could you please take a look then at {{Kansas City Downtown Streetcar Map}} to see if you can figure out ways to "improve" it as well (esp. in regards to making the whole route map narrower overall)? If you can, I'd really appreciate it! --IJBall (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind! – It looks like Useddenim got to it first! --IJBall (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a lot! I took a quick look before heading to work and was a bit confused. It didn't look that wide to me. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Line (Pittsburgh)

I could use an unbiased opinion. Am I out of line on this? Useddenim (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old L-car identification

Once again, I have to ask a Chicago L related question. I see a 2000-series car, and a pair of 6000-series cars, but the yellow one on the far left I'm not sure about. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That car on the left is an old wooden Northwestern Elevated Railroad car. The yellow paint signifies that it has been removed from service and is a service car. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yellow Line (CTA)

Hi there!

I have just corrected two links in the template which led to the wrong articles, namely those about the currently functioning Kostner Pink Line and Main Purple Line stations. I found no way to add the link using {{cta}} because the title names contained neither "Line" nor "branch". As you seem to have worked a lot on CTA-related topics, I'd be grateful if you could find out whether there are other misleading/confusing links in similar templates and whether these two somehow could be optimized.

Thanks a lot! --TheStrayCat (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! I was the one who made the mistake several years ago when switching to {{cta}}. It was a simple fix, I've moved the pages in question to their proper locations by adding "Line" as they should have had per naming conventions. I'll have to do a manual search for the other templates. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Lost on Belmont. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#Disambiguation. Useddenim (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what to say at this point. They seem to be concerned that the article titles "match" the new standard without much rhyme or reason to it no matter what the rest of the wiki is doing. I get the feeling the garbage heap is here to stay. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely some WP:POVPUSH and agenda pushing by Mackensen… Useddenim (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which agenda is that? I'm not even responsible for it becoming a guideline. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but it seems like Mackensen is the strongest supporter. Useddenim (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So my agenda is to move pages according to a guideline which has consensus? Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but it does seem like a case of WP:CONLIMITED. Useddenim (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 20#Template:Line 1 (Budapest Metro)

Sometimes I think people need to be smacked upside the head! Useddenim (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion consolidated at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Route Diagram Templates

Vandalism?

You need to check this out (if you haven't already done so). Useddenim (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... Some of those appear to be vandalism (didn't give it an in depth look) while others (such as the edits to the Wilson and Sheridan station articles) are genuine edits. And yet, a good portion of them are self-reverts. We should assume good faith, but those self-reverts make me think that someone is trying to fool the system into autoconfirmed status. Or is that even possible for an IP? Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think an IP can be autoconfirmed, but I may be wrong. Useddenim (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First and Fastest

I just stumbled on caerr.com, with free registration. I think First and Fastest magazines are a gold mine, and might interest you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lost on Belmont. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende

Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Useddenim (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

This is a Santa's Express to Belmont. Madison and Wabash is next. Doors open on the right at Madison and Wabash.

Happy Holidays to you, Lost on Belmont. I wish you peace and joy this Yuletide.
Doors closing. Thank you for writing the CTA. Altamel (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Transfer icon

Template:Transfer icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Useddenim (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Airport icon

Template:Airport icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Useddenim (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Union Pacific / North Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Highland Park station. 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) 10:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished routemaps

Just noting that you seem to have added unfinished track diagrams to Ashland station (CTA Orange Line) and Illinois Medical District station a while ago and never finished them. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't totally forgotten about them, but I know in the case of IMD, I needed an icon that didn't/doesn't exist and i had never gotten around to making/asking for it. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CTA at IIT

Did you know that 3100 S. Federal was a CTA rail training facility until 2005? On Google Earth you can see rails going in and a substation on the west side of the building at 31st. I thought you might care. Have a nice day. Sammy D III (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Loop 1895-1897

Template:The Loop 1895-1897 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lost on Belmont. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]