User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2009/December

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2009, and

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

) 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

{{

helpme

}}
Where did you get wind of me?
What major groups on wiki are you part of?
This helpers group, how does it work/what does it do?
Please reply soon Ahunt.
Thanks,

talk

) 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We answer questions about the use of wikipedia and how to do things. If you would like to ask Ahunt a question, the better place to ask it is on their talkpage, as Ahunt may not be monitoring this page. --Terrillja _talk 02:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It just so happens because I started this page that I am still watching it. I saw your external link fix to CFB Goose Bay and just thought I would welcome you to Wikipedia, since no one else had done it before. Most of us try to be be welcoming to new editors, mostly because we need the help here making the encyclopedia better! - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{{

}}
I cannot under stand the page on how to do a User Committed Identity. I just need to know what to do and what to put where. Can anyone help me? ) 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Pick a sentence that only you know the wording to
2. Find an online hasher (google Sha-256 generator)
3. Put your phrase into that and get the result
4. Put the resulting phrase (into a template) on your user page.

In short, that the process. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You still have not received an answer by a

19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove my last message, and do some more. Thanks,

talk

) 19:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've declined your request at this time, without prejudice to future application. Sorry, and happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  23:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, MWOAP, sorry for the long delay. I've taken a look at your edits, and to be entirely honest, you don't have anywhere near enough experience yet. I can see that your account was registered back in 2007, but you've only been regularly editing since this year, and not very heavily at that. Arbitration Clerks are ideally users who have a wide range of experiences on the project, particularly within dispute resolution, and are users who have demonstrated that they hold the community's trust to be a dependable user. Clerks are also often administrators, as the tools assist in the execution of our duties. If this is something you'd like to get involved in at some point in the future, keep in mind that positions on the clerk corps are offered by the clerk corps based on a list of potential candidates we and ArbCom maintain. My advice to you would be to remain active, with particular attention to the "back-lines" duties, clearing out backlogs and the like. After a year or so, consider admin coaching or an RFA to gauge your standing in the community. Thanks for your interest.

) 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mil Palabras con sus dientes

Just a friendly note on

23:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. My slip up there. I will try to be more careful. I understand the reasoning. --

talk

) 02:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

14th Street Viaduct (Hoboken, New Jersey)

This is an automated message from

to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

talk

) 21:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was moving a page. I thought I did it right. --

talk

) 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm clearing out the SCV listings for this day and came upon this particular article. Given your note here, it seems perhaps you may not fully grasp the attribution requirements for

move

the page, which doesn't require copying & pasting material at all, but is a mechanical function that any autoconfirmed user can do (except where there's already a page at the destination point or the article has been protected against it.)

I've eliminating the copyright problem by restoring the deleted article and merging it into the new location for the text, 14th Street (Hoboken). But if you've moved articles or split them without proper attribution before, please let me know or take steps to provide proper attribution. Otherwise, we can't legally display it. :) -

I'll be watching your talk page for a time if you have any questions about this. -Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, ok, I didn't realize I screwed up this bad. I forgot about this article after I made the move. I saw the page of copying within wiki a few days ago when dealing with other page moves & stuff. I have not made this mistake on any other articles. The State that you left the article in as of now is awesome, and again I am so sorry about my screw up there. Thanks for you help. --

talk

) 22:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

{{

}} I just listed myself properly to be the first reviewer. Though on the talk page link to the GA assessment, someone has already posted there in progress of a review. Do I override this or what? --) 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just canceled request, I will just remove my name and go for another article. --

talk

) 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(Cleared TB) ---Dough4872 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

MWOAP, thanks for your GA review of

03:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now fully addressed all of your comments on the GA review for this article. Please take a look at my comments on the

talk

22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On your GA review, you suggested using a table. Is this (

01:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think it could have a little more, i.e. preinstalled oem vendor info, grace period applies to, etc

TB removed. Author: COMPFUNK2 --

) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have corrected the deficiencies you noted in the Fedora Project. Thank you for your review! --W4otn (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Wanted to raise a couple of things about the GA review you've just undertaken at the above article. First, when concluding a review, don't clear from the GA review page the points you have raised in the course of the review. It is useful for the page to document what was wrong with the article and what got fixed. Second, while every reviewer has to interpret the GA criteria, I would not have thought this article was even close to GA status. A few examples of issues:

• Most of the (very few) references in the article are to internal company or project sources and may not meet either reliability criteria, or be considered independent of the subject.
• The bulk of the article comprises embedded lists, which are not ideal for the nature of the article. See
  WP:EMBED
  .
• Much of the list material reads like promotional text for the Fedora Project (for example "Printing to create a good printing experience on Fedora")
• Almost nothing in the "Subprojects & Special interest groups" section is referenced, and there is no indication why any of the detailed information is in any way notable.

I would in fact suggest it most likely that the entire article should be merged as a section of

) 02:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Yea, I don't know why I missed that, I will note my agreement. --

talk

) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A Stoop on Orchard Street

Hi. You tagged

) 13:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was another site also that I found doing it, I will check into it later. --

talk

) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, if you find the other location then it can always be flagged again. Tassedethe (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A redirect only has to be deleted when moving content to a new title if you are using the

15:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC) {{talkback|Wikipedia talk:Copyrights|tp=1}}

Metro North Corridor

(Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)) Sorry about that. I just need to find another link to the MetroLink extension pages.

No Problem --

talk

) 01:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

{{talkback|Talk:U.S. Route 40 in New Jersey/GA1}} ---Dough4872 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
{{talkback|Talk:U.S. Route 40 in New Jersey/GA1}} ---Dough4872 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

{{

}}

I am having an issue finding the referencing problem on

) 01:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot an ending ref tag. Mysdaao fixed it for you :)  fetchcomms☛ 02:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

With this edit in the section "Other versions". Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 02:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done an editor review for you at Wikipedia:Editor review/AmandaNP/Archives/2009/December. Perhaps you could consider doing a review of another editor? It takes a bit of time (reviews can take anywhere from about 15 minutes up to 2 hours, depending on how many contributions the editor has made, where they have contributed, etc). The ones marked with a * are those editors who have not been reviewed yet — if you want to review one of these, make sure you remove the asterisks in the parts indicated! If you have not done a review before, you might feel more comfortable giving a second review to an editor — this will show you an example of a review that has been done, and show you the kinds of things that can be commented on. I hope that you find the review useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about it. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• TB from PhantomSteve removed

I sent you an important email, posting here just in case. If you did not receive it, please give me the address so I can verify and resend, thanks.  fetchcomms☛ 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw it before you left, but it was before you left the list on my talk page.  fetchcomms☛ 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, welcome back! About the images, I see all of them, maybe just a browser issue. Anyhow, I hope you got the oversight thing fixed, the ronin afd was userfied (the user understood I think) and the Video game protect, nothing more as far as I could tell. Everything else was OK too.  fetchcomms☛ 02:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replied noting that the admin has done everything ok. let me know if there are any questions you have.

) 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to his preferred version before protecting and starting a talk page discussion was not "everything ok", regardless of the merits of his version. --Damiens.rf 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the admin could not avoid this because of new content between the stable and bad versions. He took a neutral stance. --

talk

) 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The admin did not take a neutral instance. He reverted to a version he authored and have been revert-warring to keep.

I noticed from one of you userboxes that you would like to be one administrator. From this episode, you should learn that

19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re'd on ANI. --

talk

) 19:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

R46 (New York City Subway car) edits

You said that the part of the article that I removed was not copied from another source. I removed too much content. Here's a sample of the source paragraph...

The R-46s had to be inspected several times a week at the TA's expense, and the TA and New York City filed suit against Rockwell, Pullman Standard and four other subcontractors for $192 million. As of March 1980, 62 R-46s were out of service due to cracks and 112 were out of service for other reasons. While the inspections caught many cracks before they became unfixable problems, on September 27th, two cracks of a type not before seen were found on the trucks.36 As a result, the TA cut the R-46 usage rate in half, and they would run only during weekday rush hours. Until this time, they were run between 6am and 10pm every day. Shuffling the R-46s in and out of the yards was causing delays throughout all the IND-BMT lines. In an effort to reduce the mileage that the R-46s ran, 144 of them were moved to the Brighton Line, but complaints from Brighton Beach residents about excessive vibration forced the TA to move them to the A and CC lines.37 Ironically, R-46s were run at all times during an acute equipment shortage during December 1980 and January 1981, due to very cold weather. Even the JFK Express was affected -- there were times in early 1981 where R-10s were making up the service! All of the R-16s, the cars the R-46s were intended to replace, were put back into service while the R-46 problems were sorted out. The problems were, besides the cracked trucks, heaters and wiring that posed fire hazards, faulty lighting and door controls. Yet there was even a TA proposal to remove the cross seats from the R-46s and replace them with side facing seats, as found in the R-27s through R-42s. In late December of 1981, the TA won $72 million in damages from Rockwell International, but the City Department of Investigation indicted seven high-ranking transit officials in connection with the planning, purchase, inspection and acceptance of the R-46 subway cars. Improprieties such as favoritism to certain contactors and mismanagement were cited. On March 8th, 1982, Rockwell paid New York City $80 million for damages that resulted from the faulty trucks.

And the paragraph from the article here on wiki...I went ahead and italicized some of it.

To keep track of their structural issues, R46 trucks had to be inspected several times a week. As of March 1980, 62 R46s were out of service due to truck cracks, and 112 were out of service for other reasons. In September 1980, two cracks of a type not seen before were found on the trucks. As a result, the NYCTA minimized use of the R46 fleet.

In July 1979 Pullman Standard informed the TA that the hand brake assemblies for the R46 could be faulty and they should be removed. In late July 1979, inspectors reported that steel was wearing away at the spot where the car body was joined to the truck, and that this could be potentially unsafe. By the end of 1979, numerous other flaws in the R46 fleet were found, and the Transit Authority filed another US$80 million charge against Pullman Standard and a number of other subcontractors. This lawsuit invalidated an agreement made with Pullman by executive director John G. DeRoos for US$1.5 million in spare parts to remedy the defects. In late December 1981, the NYCTA won US$72 million in damages from Rockwell International, but the City Department of Investigation indicted seven high-ranking transit officials in connection with the planning, purchase, inspection and acceptance of the R46 subway cars. Improprieties such as favoritism to certain contactors and mismanagement were cited. On March 8, 1982, Rockwell paid New York City US$80 million in damages for the costs which resulted from the faulty trucks.

Many R46s were assigned to the Brighton Line, but criticism from residents along the line about excessive vibration forced the NYCTA to shift them to the A and CC services. Due to shortages caused by the R46 issues, most R16s, some of which were intended to be replaced by the R46, were put back into service while the R46 troubles were sorted out. Just as the R44 put the St. Louis Car Company out of the passenger car business, the R46 order put Pullman Standard out of business.

I'm just saying...I, at the very least, think they're real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.104.218 (talk) on 28-Dec-09 1704 EDT (-5)

So sorry about that, you can go ahead and change that back by pressing the undo button, please note my talkpage though so other people don't think you are just vanalising. Again, my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. --

talk

) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just glad I didn't get flamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.132.131 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are you? You were not part of the original discussion. --

talk

) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. My I.P. address changes from time to time. Couldn't tell you why, but it does.

Either way, thanks for being reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.132.131 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate

❄ 01:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Matsumoto

The creator of the article has blanked the page. That means you should stop reverting it and let it be deleted. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that, will be more careful.--

talk

) 03:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my reversion

That other user was making edit tests and I was only reverting it back to the way it was with the photo in the infobox.

^Gespräch

21:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Must of been a server lag when I hit it. When I looked at it, it was the test. Sorry --

talk

) 21:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's alright, things happen. There has indeed been server lag today, been happening with me too.

^Gespräch

21:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob Henry Baber

I added some references to Bob Henry Baber. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Henry Baber. - Eastmain (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AFC

I saw you doing some AFC stuff. You can join us in #wikipedia-en-afc on IRC. Also, don't forget that when you accept a submission, don't remove the template quite yet. There are two links on it after it is moved which allow you to create a talk page with the banner, rate the article, and inform the author of the article. Thanks!  fetchcomms☛ 21:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)