User talk:DanTD/Archive. April 2009

Images of New Rochelle train station

The image gallery at New Rochelle (Metro-North station) was a good addition. Fine work!

However, you should be aware that the gallery does not resolve all the issues with images there. Five of those six images were uploaded to Commons and added to the article by sockpuppets in the Jvolkblum sockpuppet collective. Because Jvolkblum is banned in EN.wikipedia, all edits by these socks may be reverted in order to enforce the ban. More significantly, these socks have an extensive history of copyvios and of making false claims about sources of images and text; some of their cover-ups have been quite elaborate. (Among other things, they have claimed personal ownership of images that turned out to be copied from websites including http://www.newrochelleny.com/photo.asp , http://nrhs.nred.org/ , and http://www.newrochelledowntown.com/ , and for a while they were "Flickr-washing" various photos on a massive scale to get them listed at Commons.) I have posted a request for deletion at Commons for one of the images in the gallery you created (File:NRTrainStationInside.JPG). I think that File:NRTrainStationHouse.JPG also is not original -- it appears to have been enlarged from a smaller-size image downloaded from the internet, but I have not found its source. Further, I doubt the claim that the ticket book is from 1921, but I can't prove it one way or the other. I can't prove that the license claims for these and other images are invalid, but due to the egregiousness of the disruptive behavior by the Jvolkblum crowd, I don't like it that they are being allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform for their junk. --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice photo of the Montauk rail station! As for my concerns about the interior shot of the New Rochelle station, see my deletion request at Commons. The image is slightly fuzzy (unlike your clear, sharp image of the Montauk station) and its small dimensions are not consistent with a user-made image; I think it may have been downloaded from a website and enlarged slightly (File:NRTrainStationHouse.JPG has similar size and fuzziness issues). Additionally, how often does an average citizen get to photograph the interior of a commuter rail station when there are no people present? --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the ticket book image, I'm relieved to know that you think the ticket book is at least as old as 1921. I have no basis for judgment on that. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness to "other possibilities." However, considering (1) the extreme lengths that this sockpuppeteer has gone to in order to disguise copyvio material (which has been uploaded on a massive scale, both as text and as images) and (2) characteristics of this image that "don't look quite right," Occam's razor leads me to accept the simplest possible explanation of the evidence: that the sockpuppeteer has not suddenly become an honest person and that this image is not what it is claimed to be. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Florida Bus Services

Hi DanTD; I don't know if you are interested in Florida Public Transportation - but I just created a new Menu/Template for Florida Public Transportation Systems. I am not familiar with all the bus services, but some of the pages need lots of development. If you could offer any assistence, please jump in. Gamweb (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

South Irving Station

I know the CRI went backrupt in the early 1980's. That is how Dallas and Fort Worth were able to buy the line. MKT may have been a reciever before they were bought by UP, but as near as I can tell, unless they had trackage rights, MKT didn't have ownership of the tracks before Amtrak took over. My guess is that if it was a MKT depot in Irving, then they had agreements for passenger service on the tracks.

Re: Cub Cadet

Hi DanTD, Sorry not replied sooner but not been on for a few days, over Easter (it was a Bank holiday in UK). I deleted the multiple external links on Cub Cadet as they are all sub pages of cubcadet.com which was already linked (and they were added at top of list which is typical of new editors/spammers). If you had added them as citations / references to specific items in the body of the article text they would be valid links as directly referencing an Item (if a better non-connected reference is not available WP:verifiability). But multiple links to a companies web site fails to meet the guidelines in WP:EL, and multiple links to a companies web site are are a form of WP:Spam. External links sections have tendency to grow into a "list of links" (see WP:Not) rather than links that provide access to material of relevance that canot be used in the article directly. Hope this better explains my removal of the links in this case, which is also based on what is accepted and /or removed from other articles. (if they placed as a reference then the use of <ref></ref> code in the appropriate place would make it cleared & place the link into the References section). All wikipedia guidelines are open to different interpretations by individual editors and they often conflict any way IMO. So if you feel they are valid add them back, and other editors can decide. There are plenty of other pages with worst problems to worry about on WP, IMO. My summary of link spam was possibly not the best summary but was influenced by multiple links being added to same site. - Hope that makes it a bit clearer why i removed them - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem, it is probably good if people query why 'we' did edits as some times we are all probably guilty of making hasty reverts of what other think is valid, and from the other side people think all their addition are an improvement, as they have added similar to loads of other articles. I've had editors complain about me adding refimprove tags or clean up ELs tags, saying 'I' should fix the problem and not clutter articles with tags as it makes them 'untidy' !! so its a no win. I clean up some bits, tag others for a second opinion, and try to expand other articles, as well as wachting 1000's of articles for changes ( and revert vandalism/spoof entries). But I'm not one of the bots (which also get it wrong). Different areas of wikipedia have different opinions of whats OK and whats not, which is both good & bad. I disagrea with the faction that thinks every new article on a company even when the firms long gone is an advert and should be speedy deleted, and the removing of old info in company articles when taken over/ or renaming the page to the new firm as it removes the historical element from articles which is more relavent to wikipedia than the latest press release.

In the Cadet article there is a lot of Model number related material that 'wikipedia policy' likes as prose but is often easier to read as a table, or list IMO. The article currently (like many others lacks a structure to aid navigation with section headings. Also an image or two would help. The rehashed verion of the earlier version of the article i created Here has an image as well but ive not got round to uploading it here. (partially due to the messing about filling out all the declaration bits). It another article for the do more with it when I have time list, so I keep an eye out for changes. The big block of IP additions was what triggered my interest, as needs a layout revamp/bit of copy editing IMO. Good look fixing it up a bit then with a few more inline refs to verify the material. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

White Sulphur Springs depot

Unfortunately, I don't really have any good shots of the depot itself. With a full parking lot and a lot of big evergreens beside it, I had trouble getting good clean shots of the building. I'll probably be in the area again sometime later this summer and will try to get some better shots then. Brian Powell (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the other side is just a gravel access road. Most of the old C&O mainline has one now from previously removed tracks. Brian Powell (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Route box help

Hi DanTD, Done it and replied in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains.Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)