User talk:NE2/Archive 18

Thanks/help Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines lines

Thanks for the help with the PRSL and the ACRR! Can you please add a Contents to the West Jersey and Seashore Railroad . Please contact me via my E-Mail on my page N2icv (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC) you cant be anymore grumpier than I am ? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by N2icv (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add SMS Rail Service, New Jersey Transit Rail Operations and PATCO Speedline to the "Companies operating former Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines lines" And what did you do P - RSL P-- RSL ? N2icv (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are categories; if you scroll to the way end of the edit window for any article, you can see them in use. --NE2 23:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per what you said on my talk

SJRail.com Wiki Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines <--- how is this not " directly relevant " ? It has more info then on the wiki here. (Thanks to me)
Hagley Museum and Library <--- The Timeline is from there archives and they asked for a link on the page for using the info! Or remove the Timeline Info. I have spent hrs there going thu the archives for this page and the SJRail wiki.

So please put them back . Also look at my page to see who I am, I think I know more about the P-RSL then you sir. But you are doing a nice job on the page, Thanks N2icv 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LIRR West Brighton Beach Division & Manhattan Beach Branch

I had no idea you were the person who posted the first message on the LIRR Manhattan Beach Branch talk page, and I can't read those references you posted, but is this the Culver Line you're referring to? If so, perhaps the "West Brighton Beach Division" redlink on the {{Long Island Rail Road}} template ought to be redirected there. As for the Evergreen and Bushwick Branches, It appears that they were part of the former Manhattan Beach Branch, so maybe those redlinks should face a similar fate. ----DanTD (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't remember, and I'm getting confused right now :\ --NE2 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out the Evergreen Branch was originally the Glendale and East River Railroad. Now for the other sections of the Manhattan Beach Branch. ----DanTD (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks - I mostly concentrate on the U.S. anyway. --NE2 06:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:NE2/r2

Hi, do you want this protected to avoid the bots? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; I want the bots so I know if they stop if and when the maximum redirect chain length is permanently increased. --NE2 05:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Cannon Beach City Center, Oregon

user pages

Please don't do unwanted changes in user pages of other rusers. - 7-bubёn >t 18:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own your user space, and it's clear that others do want these changes. --NE2 18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I do to a large extent, please read the policies I have my reasons. Please respect them. - 7-bubёn >t 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could explain those reasons? --NE2 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy. That's I've undergone the hassle of renaming after 5+years and 100K+ contribs. Co-editors know who I was. The rest should not care. Name does not matter: content does. - 7-bubёn >t 04:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your "privacy" has been kind of busted. --NE2 09:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think I don't know that? (And do you think many wikipedians really care about dealing with me?) I am not talking about wikipedia privacy; it is the real-world issue. I will not go into detail but the issue does exist. - 7-bubёn >t 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel editing here puts you at danger, stop editing. Your life is more important than your editing. --NE2 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi.

Thanks for supporting the elimination of BetacommandBot warnings, apparently it didn`t had others support. but apreciate it anyway Zidane tribal (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A favor

Hey, NE2, if you could with your wonderful AWB skills create redirects to all Utah state route articles (including state and U.S. highways) - if someone types in "Utah State Road XX" (XX being the number). I'm asking you to include U.S. routes because frequently the local news media refers to a lot of U.S. routes as "State Roads" as well as regular state routes (it positively miffs me when reporters refer to US-6 as SR-6). This is a pretty tedious task so if you can't do it with AWB consider this request void :) Thanks again - C L — 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is probably to have someone with a bot create them. (Note that Utah State Route 6 is a disambiguation.) --NE2 00:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Note though, with US-6, Utah State Road 6 does not redirect to it, which is what I'm trying to do with every Utah state road article. C L — 01:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for butting into a conversation that doesn't involve me. Wouldn't the easiest solution be to just re-list the US and Interstate routes on List of Utah State Routes? (They used to be there before being broke off a separate page). Although Utah State Road 6 does not exist searching on Utah State Road 6 will result in various Utah state Route pages being returned, clicking on any of which would lead to that page in the infobox.Dave (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On hindsight I can't remember why exactly we split the Interstates and U.S. Routes into its own separate page - it would be much more convenient if all state-maintained highways were on one list the more I think about it - C L — 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting mark template

Since you were the one who's been editing this template most recently, I thought you'd be right person to come to with a question/comment. It appears that the template is set up to link to the article titled with the name of the reporting mark — in many cases, that article is a disambiguation page, which shouldn't have an incoming link. I've been fixing these by removing the template and replacing it with a parenthetical link to the Reporting mark article and leaving the mark itself unlinked (see Wilmington Terminal Railroad and Wabash Valley Railroad most recently). Not sure how the template was intended to work, but I'm assuming how it's working now wasn't it. Mlaffs (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that - it's part of how the parserfunction #ifexist works. --NE2 04:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go back and revert the changes that I've made. It doesn't cause a problem where the mark is a redirect to the railroad article, however, you need to figure out a way to keep it from creating an incoming link where the mark is actually a dab page. Mlaffs (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

re red links are not a problem. --NE2 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:red link:

However when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles

--TheAllSeeingEye (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When there's a finite set of articles, that's not a concern. Don't remove redlinks. --NE2 00:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LT article alerts

It works. It just won't work for most rail-related topics. Simply south (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message for you at the Village pump

I have responded to your message at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Is there an easy way to generate some sort of list from templates?.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rschen7754

Is there any hope for me to avoid a indefinite block against me by the administrator? --I-210 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; Rschen7754 shouldn't block you because he's involved. --NE2 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am on indefinite leave until further notice. --I-10 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request

I have a question for you. I found this photo on Flickr. According to the uploader, it's a WPA photo, but the uploader is claiming copyright on it. I've tried contacting the uploader to get it relicensed eitehr as a PD photo, which it would be if it's a work of WPA, or under Creative Commons. Either way would allow me to transfer it to Commons or en.wiki and add it to U.S. Route 41 in Michigan. That's all a bit pointless if I can find a third party reliable source that states it (or another one of the set) is from the WPA. Any suggestions on where I might find some information like that? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything saying it's a WPA photo, just a WPA project. It could be from the MDOT records, for instance. (Aside: it's not really that great of a photo for illustrating US 41; I don't see anything that makes it stand out from any other dirt road in a swamp.) --NE2 21:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fair use data overlaid images

So it sounds like the category might theoretically see some use in the future. Does it qualify as a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion? --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, it sounds like something that won't get any use. If the overlays are creative enough to be eligible for copyright, then we shouldn't use the image, unless the image itself is iconic, and then we need to explain that, not just plop this template down. --NE2 02:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and let the category die, then. The template, however, lies outside the scope of my current efforts. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 199

I was wondering what your opinion of the current state of the article is; I think that it may have been damaged through severe edit warring. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff. --NE2 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That's one funny thread. -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rail cat

Not quibbling with your cat (for now, since there are more than two Canadian rail carriers, just some don't have articles), but FYI CAnadian National is not a Canadian company....."in name only", and not in registratino.Skookum1 (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed in Canada, yes, but no longer Canadian-owned; see here and also the debate about "CM" vs "Canadian National" at the time of the buyout of BC Rail. As for rail carriers vs rail ways, what is the White Pass and Yukon Railroad if not a railway? The Alberta Resources Railway or whatever it's called? What's Ferroequus (an Alberta company that withdrew from the bidding process on BC Rail). The Ontario Northern Railroad (or whatever it's called etc). Or is there a distinction between a rail carrier and a railway?? What is the Southern Railway of BC if not a rail carrier? (that's the old BCER line, now American-owned, not sure by which railgroup...maybe it's even CN now but I don't think so).Skookum1 (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, didn't see the bit about "Class 1" (need more coffee); was that in the catname?Skookum1 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NE2. You have new messages at Radiant chains's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Radiant chains (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map for Washington State Route 251

Could you make a map for Washington State Route 251 (currently preparing to create article) using the format you used for all other WA maps; I'd like it to be located here. Thanks! –CG 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you have extra time, could you make a PSH 1 map using PHenry's examples (e.g. Image:Map-WA-PSH2.svg). If you don't mind you could complete the whole series, as we are missing maps for PSHs 12-22. –CG 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to redo some of the georeferencing - maybe later. You should work on improving existing articles, by the way; SR 251 fits fine as-is. --NE2 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G&W Annual Meeting

See my post on the G&W talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnels Wiki Project Proposal=

We meet again. I saw your comment on Tunnels. Care to join me in starting a WikiProject Tunnels? Comments accepted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tunnels Pustelnik (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NE2. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire ships templates

There were 1,367 British Government owned ships which bore the Empire prefix. I've created the templates with black text because it looks better than a sea of redlinks. When the articles are written, it may be that the article will not be under the Empire name. For an example of a completed template see {{Empire A ships}} where every ship is linked. If you want to write a few articles I won't stand in your way. The various lists linked at the bottom of each template should give enough info to research online with. Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main question is why these templates exist in the first place. Not every topic needs a navbox. (Also, redlinks are not a problem for a valid article topic.) --NE2 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conduit and NY 27

Great comment on the Conduit and NY 27 ... totally different. Thanks for the input.Dogru144 (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox rail

Template talk:Infobox rail#Fix electrification & Template talk:Infobox rail#Fix website

"old_gauge" is usefull in Ferrocarril de Antofagasta a Bolivia which was changed from 30 to 1. There may be others that were changed from one gauge to another that is not standard gauge.
Please try to make "| website" work in this template. (Hull-Chelsea-Wakefield Railway) Peter Horn 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If neither gauge is standard, you can simply put the whole thing in the gauge parameter. --NE2 18:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flint

Sorry about that; I assumed that it was some proper noun that I'd never heard of, and that you only accidentally changed the link while correcting capitalisation errors in article texts. Thanks for following up on it! Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

I'm not sure why I would... --NE2 23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wabash Avenue

I feel that Wabash Avenue is notable for an article. Besides everything else, it was originally planned as part of an interstate highway, but never constructed as such. There is information to verify this. It is parallel to a major railroad and the Baltimore Metro Subway, and is the location of 3 Metro stations. The only thing I am considering changing is to disambiguate it because there is a Wabash Avenue in Chicago. There is presently no article on the street itself, but there is one on a bridge it has (Wabash Avenue Bridge). Sebwite (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I agree with you, but I'm not going to pursue merging. --NE2 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Old NY 399

This was a really weird situation with NY 399 in Fulton County. I have maps (not just 1) marking NY 399 from NY 10A in Cork to NY 29A in Meco. This is now part a CR and a part Town Road. I can get more details later. (I just got back from vacation).3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 22:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source

I see that you have renamed "Pumpkin Vine Railroad" to "Indiana Division (Chicago, Danville and Vincennes Railroad)‎". The former is certainly a local name, and I have no problem with a more official name being used, especially since the redirect is there; but I'd be interested to know your source for the latter. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response; that's a pretty cool source. Omnedon (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Link Inc.

Your question at User talk:Peter Horn#Link to Rail Link Inc. about Rail Link Inc.. My answer: Rail Link Inc. did not yet exist as an article, but Rail link (not to be confused with Rail Link (disambiguation)) did already exist & I only made Rail Link Inc. to a redirect page to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. after making my revision. Since then I also found another redirect Rail Link, Inc.. So Rail Link Inc. was not such a good idea, Rail Link Inc. might have been better. Peter Horn 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be bad, but at least it would go to the right article. I have come across a lot worse, some real howlers, take for example a look at the revision history of Coupling (railway) by country. As for false precision, in this case you have a valid point, however if the qualifiers "more than", less than", "greater than, "approximately" etc are not applied it may be another matter. Cheers, Peter Horn 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the likelyhood that an article about Rail link ever be written? Peter Horn 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater than zero. --NE2 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Litchfield and Madison

Thank you so much, NE2, for your kind words re: my work in creating the Litchfield and Madison, and my interest in filling in some of the gaps. Those are some excellent sources that you provided, and that data definitely should be added to the L&M page to round it out. It'll get added to my (ever-lengthy!) list of things to do. Also, thank you, NE2, for your vigilance and your commitment to making the rail portion of Wikipedia as best as it can be. It is very much noticed and appreciated. Cheers, --Jarvishunt (talk) 28 May 2009 (UTC)

FUR

What was wrong with the FUR for File:Beat the Dealer by Ed Thorp.jpg. The image helps the reader verify that Thorp is actually a blackjack strategist from the 60s.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It's pure decoration in aces and eights. --NE2 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious.

Yes. If you disagree, you can always contest.--gordonrox24 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you belong in anger management classes. Contest the deletion, give a good reason; and if it is deemed good enough and you should be fine. wasting your time and not adding your contest is not helping you any.--gordonrox24 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--gordonrox24 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Collection Images

The originals might be out of copyright, but the uploader concerned seems to have

some differing opinions about the restorations, given thier talk page... Hence the request for more information..

I'll not tag more of thier contributions for now..

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg

Just a reminder: you guys need to knock off the reversions, you're both well past 3RR and someone's very likely to bean you for it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually just skirting the boundary, if I'm looking correctly, but I will knock it off. --NE2 20:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railroad

The Queen and Crescent Route article references the Y&MV railroad with the acquisition of the Meridian to Shreveport branch. Is that incorrect or does the map just show a different date? (Either the article needs to be changed or I think the cat may be valid; I'll defer to your obviously superior RR knowledge there!) Assuming that article is out, I currently have 5 members of the cat which I think is workable starting point. My goal here is to bring together the actual physical railroad with blues cultural references that are specific to Y&MV and would be confusing and inappropriate in the larger Illinois Central cat. Reasonable?RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pontchartrain Rail-Road

As mentioned on the article talk page, I put the article at "Pontchartrain Rail-Road" because that is how it is rendered in the original doccuments from the 1830s. If you think a modernization should be imposed, please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --NE2 12:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct NY Railroads

Great. I'm surprised Long Beach Marine Railroad was considered merely a streetcar line. I'm on vacation right now and I have limited internet access, so I won't be making too many corrections and updates until the end of June 2009. ----DanTD (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether to put it there or in the main table. --NE2 15:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway companies established in 1841

I see that you created this category which is now empty. Any idea if it really is empty and can be deleted or was some valid content removed? If you need to respond, please followup here and drop a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Troy

My point is basically — how many people who want to read about the downtown of a community are looking for an article about a historic district located within that downtown? As far as I can see, it's quite common to have a "Downtown ____" redirect to the community article, if there's not enough to have a separate article — see Downtown Akron, Ohio for an example. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to retarget it. But that was an improper deletion. --NE2 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To you both, I opened RFD for that and another. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion#2 redirects: "Downtown Troy" and "Downtown Hudson". Also, at the top of that, I just inserted parenthetical mentions trying to describe factually the recent history, that they were created in a certain way and deleted. I don't have access to the deleted version, so I'd appreciate correction to those meant-to-be-objective descriptions. Meaning the here-italicized parenthetical phrases in the following copied passage:

Downtown Troy → Troy, New York

(created recently as redirect to Downtown Troy Historic District, then deleted, then recently recreated as redirect to Troy, New York)

Downtown Hudson → Hudson Historic District (New York)

(created recently as redirect to Hudson Historic District, then deleted, then recreated]])

Request deletion of these two recently created, for several reasons....

Thanks! doncram (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crab Orchard and Egyptian Railroad

Thanks NE2 for the inquiry. According to the railroad's official historian & conductor via his Yahoo! group, both the FRA and AAR have records dating back to the 1980s confirming this information, but I'm afraid I don't know of a place on the web where they keep their historical documents online. If you have any suggestions on how to work around this, I'd be very grateful! TimberWolf Railz (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the FRA or AAR documents are accessible to the public, they don't need to be online; you just need to provide enough information that someone could obtain a copy. --NE2 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SR-74

Okey dokey. I was just going by the only reference I had, which is the UDOT highway resolutions PDF. I'm about to put the SR-74 article into the mainspace. Perhaps you would be good enough to go over the history section in a moment and enhance/cite anything related to that distinction. Thanks. De FaultRyan 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's been a while since I've looked at Utah; I just remember this one place where the PDFs are misleading. Basically it was added in 1931 as part of SR-71 and split out in 1935; the state laws (which are another reference) describe the routes. --NE2 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quotations

Why do you ask? Hyacinth (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people think the entirety of Wikipedia is pointless. If you have specific concerns regarding specific articles you may address those on the articles talk pages. Hyacinth (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are those concerns? Hyacinth (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read WP:QUOTE you already know why quotations are not pointless and should be able to draw or support specific concerns from it. Hyacinth (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Metro

Hi. I undid your most recent page move. The current consensus on the issue can be found at: Talk:Washington Metro#Proper name.3F. If you wish to move back to Metrorail (Washington, D.C.), please renew discussion for a new consensus. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEPTA City Transit Division surface routes/History by company

I know it has been a while, but did you see my reply? ----DanTD (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? --NE2 20:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. ----DanTD (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Colorado railroads

I don't know what is going on at this article but adding html links into the text and swearing isn't good, so you edits have been reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was this [1] which was spotted and triggered the alarm. Tell me how Colorado Central Railroad http://www.rrb.gov/blaw/bcd/bcd02-63.html? Where the hell was the Colorado and Eastern Railroad?--> is proper material to add to an article. Use the sandbox, if you are testing. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an HTML comment... --NE2 00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

I noticed, you put the WP:NEO tag on this article, I had a read of the criteria for this and I am a little confused to why the tag is there. It has a clear secondary reference (of which there is a 2 page spread) and it just not mention the term just in passing. Could you explain why the tag is there, or have I missed something (more likely! :D)? Cheers Andy (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, thanks for the response. Hmm, I'm not sure what else you would call it though. It is a white line, that forms in the Pacific! Lol. Again, as I have said here when nominating the article, it does seem to be fairly reliable and well covered, but it is surprising that it turns up nowhere else, even on a Google search[2]. Regards. Athe Weatherman 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Southern Railway

I did check that this railroad got a mention in the article I redirected to - there is a single line under "Roads owned by the Southern Railway". It's not much but it did provide some info about what happened to it so was not a completely useless redirect. Dpmuk (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maine railroads

Hi,

Couple of quick questions regarding List of Maine railroads:

Is there a particular reason why you removed Downeast Scenic Railroad from the list? They are an actual operating railroad, and as of right now they have restored and are operating at least one mile of mainline track, plus yard tracks. They are not completely "up to speed" yet, but I think they should be listed, since they are under FRA jurisdiction and cross several public roads at grade.

Why did you list Maine Eastern Railroad in the defunct category?

Thanks, BMRR (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I took "in development" to mean not yet operational. As for the MERR, that was an error. --NE2 23:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion at Erin Andrews

FYI, what happened there wasn't actually vandalism. Someone posted a link to the nude video, so I decided to delete the revision. While I was restoring the page, User:Dfsghjkgfhdg recreated it. His edits weren't wrong IMO, as the peephole video is major news. I was just going to revert to the last good revision but you beat me to it. Oren0 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, he was editing the section to add {{fact}}, and the rest of it went poof. --NE2 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the swine

Thanks for your kind words, NE2. It will take a little while for me to regain the strength to deal with WP! Tony (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Freeway

In regards to your comments on the merge discussion, I've added a new "Early history" section which is specific to the Golden State Freeway. There's certainly more to go, but it's a start and the content would be inappropriate for the Interstate 5 article. You might want to have a look.--Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. [3] might help with more expansion, or at least give you more early names to search for. --NE2 05:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting marks

As a working member of the Illinois Railway Museum, I can assure you that our reporting marks are IRYM. Also, I have photographic proof of the reporting marks of the Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee (CNS&M), as well as the Chicago, Aurora, & Elgin (CA&E), both of which handled interchange freight, and therefore needed reporting marks. I will be re-adding this info, w refs, shortly. WuhWuzDat 19:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN3 case

Hello NE2. You appear to have made four reverts within 24 hours over at Illinois Railway Museum, on the issue of reporting marks. Since past practice might suggest that both you and the other guy could be blocked, it would be helpful if you would add to the AN3 report a promise to stop reverting, and expressing your willingness to follow WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I don't understand: I tried to bring in outside assistance at WT:TWP, but nobody helped. I feel it is my duty to remove misinformation - which, I assure you this is; it's not a case of two people disagreeing over facts, but a case where the sources clearly back up one side. One of the biggest problems we have is people adding misinformation. --NE2 04:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably everyone who breaks the 3RR policy thinks they are right. Please agree to stop the war. (Each of you has a different conception of the truth, and the sources are confusing). EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are only confusing because his don't mention reporting marks at all, because they are not lists of reporting marks. I would stop the war if someone agreed to help explain to him why he's wrong, but getting rid of obvious misinformation (and it is obvious to a subject-matter expert) and preventing it from spreading further through the internet is important. --NE2 04:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please state the criteria by which you appoint yourself as an "expert". WuhWuzDat 04:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're drifting pretty far from the topic. You have not provided any sources that state that IRYM is a reporting mark. Such a source would include the text "reporting mark" somewhere. --NE2 04:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my question, you claim to be a "Subject expert", thereby somehow claiming your opinion is superior to mine. You provide no credentials for this claim. I have almost a quarter century of history with IRM (Note: that's just an abbreviation!) under my belt, and I think I know what "reporting marks" are used for shipping equipment to (and occasionally from) our location. furthermore, per your ref on Reporting marks, "Reporting Marks are stenciled on owned and leased equipment.". In support of this definition, and the use of IRYM as an actual "Reporting mark", I submit the following bits of photographic evidence [4][5][6]. This equipment was shipped to Union, IL, using IRYM as "Reporting Marks". The fact is, Railinc is a database for UMLER data, not reporting marks (the 2 datasets are NOT identical). WuhWuzDat 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to provide a source that IRYM is the reporting mark, and not just letters painted on the equipment? --NE2 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) As an uninvolved party who is a non-expert, I had trouble figuring out where to put my observation but I think it might help EdJohnston. This comment may have been better placed at the AN3 discussion, I wasn't sure. Is it possible both parties can agree that the true issue lies with the ambiguous nature of the "marks=" parameter of the {{Infobox rail}}? I looked at it and also the WP:TWP/MOS style guide, and the two fail to state that the infobox parameter that is being warred over is explicitly a reporting mark. I think NE2 understands that is what is intended for the parameter but Wuhwuzdat doesn't, and the ambiguity is caused by lack of documentation defining the infobox parameter "marks=". As a non-expert, I'm still able to see that NE2 is correct, IRYM is not a "reporting mark" but the lack of documentation leads Wuhwuzdat to think it is a "mark", and it is fine to put it in the infobox. It hope that sums up the issue, which can be solved by clarifying the intent of the infobox parameter in the documentation, infobox or MOS or both. Sswonk (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does generate a row with "Reporting mark" on the left. --NE2 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are justified in your revert. I believe you can head this type of issue off by specifying in the WP:TWP/MOS, under General style guidelines as a bullet point: "As indicated by the link for Reporting mark in the left column of {{Infobox rail}}, use reporting marks and not simple abbreviations for this field." It may seem like overkill, but obviously confusion exists and spelling it out can help avoid disputes. Sswonk (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NE2, please see the result of the 3RR case, which restricts both parties on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly defunct railroads

I think you may be putting revived or re-established railroads into defunct-by-state categories: for example Toledo, Peoria and Western Railway into Category:Defunct Iowa railroads. The TP&W is quite definitely operating, and its parent company is not a common carrier in its own right, though it owns a lot of railroads. I think there may be some confusion because, for example, TP&W has the categories Category:Railway companies established in 1887+Category:Railway companies disestablished in 1927+Category:Railway companies established in 1989. (The text says it was merged into the ATSF in 1983, not 1927, so I don't know where 1927 came from. It was split back out only 6 years later.) The railroad may have been defunct in the past, but only for 6 years, and it certainly is not currently defunct, unless the article is about 2 or 3 different subjects, in which case: Maybe they should have their own articles? Maybe there should be new categories like Category:Revived Iowa railroads or something, which may be easier than splitting out every recreation of every railroad; but if they are going to be labeled "defunct" explicitly, it seems that the only subjects of the article should be things of the past. --Closeapple (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overly

Good point; of course we can't state an un-annexation guess in the article, but it sounds like a good explanation to me. I've never heard of un-annexation before, but it seems a simpler (and perhaps more reasonable) answer to this quandry than anything else. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe article

Hi NE2, I am passing this link from this morning's Boston Globe along in case you have not yet seen it, for your information/possible future article references: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/08/04/officials_forge_plans_for_ne_rail_network/ . Sswonk (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Streets and squares in Boston

I started the template {{Streets and squares in Boston}} to address the concerns of Sebwite, please take a look and voice your support or lack thereof at the discussion we were having so he will know whether or not it is going to cause problems to start using it. I also contacted Denimadept. Thanks for your valuable input, it is very appreciated. Sswonk (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oregon Eastern Railway

On August 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oregon Eastern Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Puget Sound Shore Railroad

On August 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Puget Sound Shore Railroad, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN revert

I'm sure you don't see anything wrong with it, so calling it vandalism would be wrong, but don't remove active conversations. Thank you. --NE2 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but I agree with the original removal and I don't think it's at all constructive to permit this kind of content to continue on WP:AN, or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter. I emphatically deny your premise that it's wrong to remove active conversations. Some kinds of conversation must be removed and we have a strong guideline for such removal and policies to enforce appropriate removal of unacceptable content.. If you are even tempted to call my edit vandalism, you still, after three years, have a lot to learn about Wikipedia. --TS 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, some conversations should be removed, such as those that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. That's clearly not the case here though. --NE2 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a certain kind of real world harassment. It's delete-on-sight and always has been. Deleting again. Please do not encourage this. --TS 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I'm encouraging harrassment? I don't think anyone here has any desire to encourage amorrow. --NE2 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are totally encouraging it. And so is this conversation. And so will any response you make. Let it go. Wknight94 ^talk 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say, except that it offends me to be told that I'm encouraging harrassment, and that you're doing a good job of ensuring that more haphazard deletions and ensuing flareups happen. --NE2 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree the conversation should be removed and WP:DENY is about the worst excuse to do it. The conversation is NOT about the person who got banned, it's about the actions taken by an admin. So to use WP:DENY is saying we can't question actions by admins? Thats a valid useof WP:AN to call into question contraversial edits/decisions of an admin. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NE2, the reason I think that more people didn't jump in to support you in the squabble with TS is that many aren't sure how to handle issues surrounding that particular banned user. He is a seriously bad dude who has done some seriously bad things, so people are scared to mess around with it. Nevertheless, TS overreacted, I think because TS tends to take actions that provoke drama, for reasons known only to himself. As you state above, several people were trying to use the opportunity to improve our admin processes, which is a separate issue from the ex-editor in question. So, TS's actions were unhelpful and counterproductive. If you're an admin, I think you would have been justified in blocking TS for his actions. In fact, I think it would have been the appropriate response. Cla68 (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I probably would have been too "involved" to block myself, and it just would have upped the drama. --NE2 09:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it definitely would have upped the drama, but it would have been TS's fault. Anyway, let's see what happens the next time, or time after that, that the banned editor in question starts editing Wikipedia again. If any admins whatsoever are confused by what results, I'm going to try to use it as a teacheable moment yet again on administrative efficiency. As for TS, that's another issue. Cla68 (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment for State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as you are a major contributor to the article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cottonwood West

Would you please help me explain to someone that Cottonwood West, Utah has not ceased to exist? The example that you provided on its talk page against its annexation is being used by someone to argue that it's not really there, because the area that's Cottonwood West isn't part of any municipality. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you'll like my response, but thanks for letting me know. --NE2 22:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks finding the "Highways to the Sky" book on CDOT's website. That has turned out to be a real gem. It both allowed me to replace a few marginal sources with this reliable one, as well as expand a few articles. Thanks again. Dave (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Interchanges

Apologies. It's sometimes difficult to disam with multiple meanings relating to one thing (in this case, railroads). So thank you. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/ICC valuations

I've restored it so you can take a look - just a short list w/lots of redlinks... Skier Dude (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All gone :) Thanks Skier Dude (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kingdom_of_Lovely#Proposed_merge

Hello. Since you proposed the merge you may be interested in this discussion. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sub-page redirects

Is there a reason User:NE2/r2 and User:NE2/r1 exist? Clearly you're aware that the bots hate them since you keep reverting--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I know if double redirects are ever changed to work and the bots respect that. --NE2 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely even when/if they allow double redirects gain, a redirect to a page that redirects back to the first is never going to work. Wouldn't it be easier to just check the tech report of every signpost?--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is easier - and it will let me know if the bots are still handling loops properly. --NE2 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)/GA1

Hi, there is just one minor point remaining in this Good Article reassessment. I was wondering if you could help clear it up so that I can close the GAR. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - you'll have to ask Mitch. --NE2 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]