User talk:Wondering55

Hello, Wondering55, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for recognizing the benefits of becoming a registered user, creating your user/talk page, and your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you need help, check out useful resources & Getting Help below, ask on his talk page, or ask a question on your talk page & add {{Help me}}. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) after your text entry, or by clicking if shown, in order to produce your username & date. Please always fill in edit summary field with a brief description of your article or talk page edits (optional when just adding your communications on talk pages). You can practice in your personal sandbox (add {{My Sandbox|replace with your user name}} on your user page for future easy access) or your user page. Happy editing! ~~~~ Getting started Getting started • A tutorial • Wikipedia's five pillars Edit a page • Be bold in editing • Upload and use images Avoid mistakes • Simplified set of rules Manual of Style (MOS) • How-to guide manual for Wikipedia Getting mentored • Explore Wikipedia's contents/subjects Getting help Where to ask questions or make comments • Help with basic issues New user help • Frequently asked questions (FAQ) • Tips Help directory (lists of informative, instructional, & consultation pages) Help desk (ask questions about Wikipedia) • Other assistance resources The Teahouse (get help from peers & experienced editors) The Village Pump (discussions for more extensive technical issues & projects of Wikipedia) Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view (NPOV) • No original research (NOR) Edit warring and the three-revert rule (3RR) Need to attribute items to reliable sources Verifiability • Reliable sources (RS) • Citing sources (CS) Use of primary (PS) vs. other sources • External links (EL) List of official policies • List of guidelines • What Wikipedia is not Sock puppetry (multiple accounts for improper use) • Spam Vandalism • Conflict of interest (COI) Copyrights • Non-free content (NFC) • Deletion policy (DP) Writing articles Basics for creating an article • Notability of topic for creating an article Wizard for submitting a new article • Wikicode to format text and page Developing the article • Criteria for the perfect article Showcase of best articles meeting content/editing guidelines Article stubs (deemed too short for encyclopedic coverage) Considerations for biographies of living persons (BLP) Peer reviews of articles (request or nominate an article for review) Article clean up: • General resources • Spam • Vandalism Categorizing article topics (CAT) • Disambiguation (DAB) of article titles The user community Build consensus (CON) • Dispute resolution (DR) Assume good faith (AGF) • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks (NPA) • No legal threats (NLT) Community portal • Mailing lists • Resource directories User pages • Talk pages • Chat rooms (using IRC channels) Join or create a WikiProject team (focus on a topic of interest or Wikipedia task) The Signpost (newspaper with stories about Wikipedia) Miscellaneous tools and support Tools to enhance functionality for users • Add hidden comments for other editors Useful message/symbol templates • Archive talk page contents Wikipedia screen interfaces: • Standard options • Customized changes Awards (rewarding registered contributors for their achievements & hard work) Translating foreign language Wikipedia articles for English articles

Welcome, roadfan!

Hello, Wondering55, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects—WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:CRWP (Canada), WP:INR (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States)—and contribute. If you live in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads ^connect as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.

Again, welcome! Imzadi 1979 → 05:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Archives / Sandbox

• Archive 1 for this Talk page

My sandbox

Convert parameter adj=j

Your recent edit to the article for Chatham Borough, New Jersey added the parm "adj=j" to several occurrences of the convert template. Yet Template:Convert has nothing about this parameter and it's unclear how this functions based on the documentation. Your edit summary states that you "updated applicable Convert entries to avoid text wrap with first number and and first word of any fully spelled-out unit of measurement" but what is this based on? Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Check out Template Talk:Convert#Problems with separation of Number from Units of Measurement at End of a Text Line.. I raised this issue and they provided this function. I asked them to included this adj=j with a description in the Template. It works as I described it in the edit history. As an example, it would avoid any split between "32" and "Miles" or "32" and "Square" (for "Square Miles") at the end of a line. Other editors have been asking for this function over the years. The team felt it was time to allow this option. It is not required when abbr=on is used since that function uses abbreviated unit of measurements that avoid text wraps. It is not required when adj=on is used since that is used with hyphenated numbers and units of measurement that avoid text wrap. In all regular cases, the second displayed "converted" number uses abbreviated units of measurement, which avoids text wrap.Wondering55 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge Bus Station

Please read Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) and New York City Transit Authority. The MTA doesn't run anything directly, it's an omnibus agency which works through separate operating agencies like the NYCTA. Please be sure of your facts before you edit war to support erroneous ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• When you revert someone's update, it is proper to provide an explanation so that a user can then understand the legitimacy of the change or provide further clarification to try and reach a common agreement. do not assume there is any edit war just because I have a misunderstanding of your intent. you seem to be very knowledgeable.Wondering55 (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The buses that run out of GWBBS are not part of the MTA Regional System, they're part of the normal bus operations, and the name for the entity that runs them is either "New York City Transit" or "MTA New York City Transit". The regional bus entity is something else entirely and has nothing to do with those buses. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, it's not a good idea to idea war in support of it when someone corrects you, whether or not they provide an edit summary. Now, you've been given the correct information (twice), so I expect not to see you reverting the accurate information I provided again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you had originally revised the subsection to "MTA New York City Transit" (as shown), which is the New York City Transit Authority, as originally shown before all of these back and forth revisions, all of this confusing back and forth could have been avoided. "New York City Transit" was never the correct official name. The subsection should have the correct full official name as currently shown.

According to the Wikipedia article on the MTA Regional Bus Operations, the MTA New York City Bus system, which includes the listed bus routes running by the GWBBS, are part of the MTA Regional Bus Operations. If that article is incorrect, please feel free to update it.

Neither of your two previous explanations properly addressed these issues, which is why we had to go back and forth before we both agreed on the current correct subsection title. If someone corrects another person, an explanation is needed since NO one should presuppose they have a monopoly on the "correct" version. Hope that we can work together in the future. I am always open to alternate suggestions or pointing out any fallacies in my explanations.Wondering55 (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Fort Lee lane closure

Dear Wondering55: I don't know of anyone who questions that the Kelly email exists. We just don't want to get ahead of the story. The mere fact that an email exists with a heading that says "From: Bridget Anne Kelly" does not necessarily mean that she's the one who sent it, or that it was ever sent at all. Now, we have no reason to believe that she isn't the one who sent it, and we have no reason to believe that it wasn't sent (after all, there is also a Wildstein Email that purports to respond to the Email). The point is that this is going to be the subject of litigation, possibly criminal prosecutions. In Wikipedia, we want to be precise on this. Famspear (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. However, Wikipedia is not a legal court of review. Otherwise, almost everything in Wikipedia would have to be reported as "allegedly", until proven in a court of law. The email was provided as evidence and must be assumed to be legitimate and sent by Bridget Anne Kelly, who did not deny it was hers.

If we would go with your scenario, then every other single communication, whether e-mail or text, in this article needs to be qualified as allegedly sent by someone.

It might be OK to say "allegedly" if someone claimed that an e-mail was sent by someone else, but when the documents are in hand, let's not play the defense's game in a Wikipedia article.

You will notice that I went along with your revision to only state that she advised Wildstein that it was time for traffic problems rather than instructing him to shut down the toll lanes.

As you can already see, Dezatsu has already reversed your changes and provided the necessary reasons. Let us continue to work together. Thanks for taking the time to provide your perspective.Wondering55 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. A few minutes ago, I posted another comment in the talk page for the article that explains my thinking in more detail. The point I am wanting to make is that it is the source that should make the allegation, not Wikipedia editors, and the source should be clearly cited in the article. I agree with you that we would not recommend using the term "allegedly" in Wikipedia each and every time a reliable source makes an allegation. Where to draw the line is a matter of professional judgment (I'm an attorney and former broadcast news reporter, and that's where I'm "coming from" so to speak). In this case, a tiny, cautionary "bell" went off in my head as I was reading the article. However, consensus seems to be that the article is OK as is. Famspear (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Chatham or Chatham Borough?

"Chatham Borough" is the borough; "Chatham Township" is the surrounding township; "Chatham" (without any qualifier) is inherently unclear, which is why disambiguation is required. In cases where there is no ambiguity, dropping the type of municipality may well make sense, as with Summit or Mountainside (not Summit City or Mountainside Borough). Where there are pairs of municipalities (such as Mendham Borough / Township or Neptune City / Township), the consensus has always been to include the type of government in the title of the article and in any references to the place within an article, and as such consensus is to use "Chatham Borough" throughout the article. There is already a semi-active discussion at WT:NJ to address the issue of including / excluding type of government where there is no ambiguity, and you may want to reach out there to generate consensus otherwise regarding referring to "Chatham Borough" solely using "Chatham". Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see using Chatham Borough in the title to avoid any confusion, but once the article starts there does not appear to be any need to make any further distinctions between "Chatham" and "Chatham Township" since it is very clear from the first lede sentence and the article title which Chatham is being talked about. I do not perceive any confusion with this approach. In fact, it appears that the majority consensus after 12 years since the article was first created was to identify the municipality as Chatham, and not Chatham Borough.

Your edits seem to go against what has been accepted for 12 years in this particular article. In fact, the way the article is set up now, it is even more confusing since Chatham and Chatham Borough are used interchangeably throughout the article. The lede also starts out calling the municipality "Chatham", and then inexplicably starts referring to it as "Chatham Borough". People, who live there, and reporters regularly refer to it as Chatham, and NOT Chatham Borough. The consensus in Wikipedia articles is to refer to an item by what it is most commonly described and recognized as. Chatham is most commonly described and recognized as "Chatham" and NOT "Chatham Borough". Can we reach some compromise where Chatham can be used when the sentence does not also refer to Chatham Township, and Chatham Borough if the sentence also refers to Chatham Township. I look forward to your response. Wondering55 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref to NJ Legislature transcript

Hi, Wondering55,

The "30 years" ref for Mr. Durango's testimony is to a shared transcript, true.

However, the shared URL drops the '#page=89' suffix I had provided, which took the reader to the page that Acrobat Reader considers Page 89 (but labeled "86"), which has Mr. Durango's exact comments.

Is there a way to share the reference, and still direct folks to page 86 (89) for the "30 years" comment?

I don't want the reader to have to wade through 230 pages of transcript, when he can be directed to the exact page.

Thanks. JackGavin (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I just added the reference page, which is shown with after the citation number, which is in parentheses. Wondering55 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that notation, but I guess that's what we have. Can we handle the 86/89 confusion as something like ?

Thanks JackGavin (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rp which explains the RP. Despite what Acrobat Reader thinks, the displayed page number is 86, so I'd change the thing to . JackGavin (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have asked about how to handle the page numbering mismatch at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Rp#When_Acrobat_Reader_page_number_mismatches_displayed_page_number. JackGavin (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I have seen the electronic page number cited for any citation to an electronic document if it is different than a physically shown page number. I have never seen both the electronic and the physical page number shown for a source. I posted a comment on the topic page that you linked to. Let's wait to hear back before we do anything further. Wondering55 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the standard convention is to show the page number that actually appears at the bottom of a page (in our case, p. 86) from a cited source rather than the electronic page number. Identifying the page shown at the bottom of the page would require an interested Internet users to search and scroll before getting to the correct page.

Identifying the electronic page number would get an interested reader directly to the correct page (in our case, 89 of 230).

Please advise which convention you prefer to appear in the article, or and I will change it. Wondering55 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fort Lee lane closure scandal

Hello! Your submission of Fort Lee lane closure scandal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Date format

Hi. I am using the Cite Templates from the editor and the date format used there is Day Month Year, but you are correcting these dates using the American notation of Month Day Year. Which one is correct? Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

To be consistent with all other dates cited in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article, the current format is Month Day Year. Date formats are typically decided at the beginning when an article is beginning to be published. There are a variety of date formats that can eventually be made as a consistent format for a particular article. Some articles even used different date formats for a citation article date and a citation retrieval/access date. There is NO standard correct format for all articles. There is a problem when citation templates are used to automatically add in missing details since it could be adding the wrong date format upon which an article is using. You then need to go in and correct the date fromat to be consistent with the Wikipedia article. Wondering55 (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: normally an article related to a specific country will use the date format appropriate to that country. For non-military topics in the US, that's MDY, not DMY. (See WP:STRONGNAT.) As Wondering says, when an article is first written, ("published" isn't the right term for a number of reasons, but I digress) we retain a number of formatting and style conventions (variation of English, date format, citation format) unless there is no clear choice nor a nation-based choice to settle on. In the referenced article, it would be appropriate to force the article back to the standard American date format when subsequent edits have strayed from that. Imzadi 1979 → 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

News sources vs. press releases

Newspaper sources are preferred over press releases. A press release is a first-party primary source because it is published by the DOT (first-party) and it is on the level closest to the information (primary). Even if a newspaper regurgitates a press release, that still makes it a third-party secondary source, which is preferred. That's the long form of what I put in my edit summary. For better or worse, we respect this preference in our sourcing, especially on Featured Articles. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your proactive approach in providing much appreciated advice and guidance to a new user and in substantially improving the layout and content of the induction package. Thank you very much. GnGn (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page complaint

Frankly I'm a bit too weary at the moment to figure out what's happening between you and that other editor. However, it appears that this edit[1] involves moving someone else's post to a different location. If that's correct, maybe it's best not to do it since there seems to be an objection. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I opened up a section on their Talk page to try and resolve this issue. Instead of shooting from the hip with unsubstantiated or distorted claims, the editor should have asked me what I was trying to do. This issue has been blown completely out of proportion. Hopefully, we can move on if calmer heads prevail. Hopefully, this editor will also remove their RfC, which seemed to surprise you and me since it contradicted Wikipedia:Requests for comment based on their separate posted issue about an article statement not being supported by a citation since it had never been addressed in the articles Talk page as you and I pointed out.

Thanks for the feedback. Wondering55 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's the way to go. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Wondering55. You have new messages at Technical 13's talk page.
Message added 14:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Use BRD

Are you familiar with WP:BRD? if not, get familiar with it so that we can enjoy editing. It means, that if you do a bold edit, like deleting a ton of content in an article, and you get reverted, you then discuss and don't revert. But you you did is do a bold edit, I reverted and then you reverted again without discussing first. As you are obviously not using BRD, I reverted again, a slippery slope. So, use BRD and save us the back and forth!!! Cwobeel (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with making unsubstantiated false accusations, which you have continually done about my edits, in order to hide behind BRD? Stop with this false nonsense that I deleted a ton of content, which only makes your arguments look clueless. If you have questions about any specific items, you can easily address them in Talk with me like a reasonable person, unless you don't want to. Wondering55 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Cwobeel is right. I was just about to make the same point. You seem to expect others to discuss while you yourself are free of that obligation. Coretheapple (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You are making false accusations as my Talk history has shown that I frequently discuss changes both in advance and for past changes. You seem to be unable to accept what I and other editors have told you or agreed to in Talk discussions and continue to bring up old issues that have been previously resolved or addressed. This is now bordering on harassment. If you both do not stop this, I will have to report both of you since all of your false accusations contradict the actual facts that are continually presented to you. Wondering55 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You also need to be cognizant of the three revert rule. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring again and deletion of text

You have got to stop the edit-warring at Fort Lee lane closure scandal. You reverted me at [2]. I came up with compromise language and placement[3], but no, that's no good either. It's your way or the highway, so you reverted me again.[4] Then you reverted some material that another editor had added concerning Dawn A. Zimmer.[5] You really need to stop this constant reverting and deletion of sourced content. I'd appreciate it very much if you would reinstate these edits that you made and cease the edit warring henceforth. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Coming back from a 3RR violation and starting again with deletions of content and reverting other people's edits? Do we need to forewarn you again? Cwobeel (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you were specifically mentioned in this edit summary[6]. What Wondering55 needs to realize is that people compromise and reach consensus as a continuing process. One conversation with a cooperative editor does not result in text that is to be enforced rigidly by reversions and etched in stone. Coretheapple (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, you are once again making false and inflammatory allegations about edit warring that are contradicted by the facts and past Talk discussions, It is definitely not my way or the highway as I repeatedly collaborate with others, as shown today in my edits and Talk discussions.

You did not come up with compromise language at [7]. You simply put back in the exact same language, which is already addressed in the subsequent statements, that was agreed to be removed in the Talk section that I cited for you. If any one is edit warring, it is you since you are putting in items that were agreed to be removed in Talk section. To make matters even more objectionable, you put back the item, which was agreed to be removed, after you just posted a comment on that Talk page that you had read the entire Talk discussion, and yet you made absolutely no mention that you intended to put back in an item that Cwobeel and I both agreed to remove based on a compromise solution.

You seem to be unable to accept past agreements on Talk pages, all of which support my edits and you continually ignore them when I reference those Talk items. Your addition at [8] was previously agreed to be removed by Cwobeel and me at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Target of Fort Lee lane closures. You need to go back to that Talk page to resolve this if you want to insert anything that contradicts a very recent Talk agreement that I have repeatedly referenced for you in the History comments section. Why is that so hard for you to do?

You are also referencing items about Zimmer in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article, which have nothing to do with Bridgegate. Past Talk discussions indicated that everything about Zimmer would be relocated to Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. You have been notified in several Talk discussions about this, yet you continue to advocate to add items about Zimmer that were previously agreed to not be included in the Bridgegate article. When the reasons, about why items about Zimmer are not included, are highlighted in Talk discussions, I do not see you or any other editors object. Instead, you come to my Talk page to intimidate me to go do what you want and ignore past Talk discussions and agreements. If another editor adds something about Zimmer, I simply point out the reason for its relocation based on past Talk agreement. They do not object to this very clear reasoning. Why is that so hard for you to accept past Talk discussions that agree with my editing?

Article content is also not etched in stone, regardless how much effort went into putting it there. Article content is continually revised and deleted by many editors in this article and every other article that I have been working on. I have not seen any claims of edit warring among these editors or between them and me, because we all know how to work together, even if we have different perspectives and ways of making the needed edits.

You also have a bad habit of waiting a while after something has been specifically agreed to at a Talk discussion and then proceed to edit in contradiction to that agreement. When it is pointed out that your edits do not agree with the past Talk agreement, you then come up with a very weak argument, that fails to meet any Wikipedia guideline that I know of, that it is OK to simply revert that agreement since it is not etched in stone, even though you have no other substantiated rationale or fact based argument based on reliable sources.

Cwobeel, once again you are ignoring Wikipedia policies to resolve items in a collaborative, rational manner on article Talk pages, as I have continually tried to do with both you and Coretheapple, and come to my Talk page to threaten and harass me with unsubstantiated arguments. When you do not get your way on the article Talk page, you simply make the changes that you want in contradiction to the Talk page discussions. If you add items to the article that are simply contradicted by reported facts by reliable sources or past Talk agreements that are still valid based on the latest circumstances, it is my obligation in accordance with Wikipedia policies to revise those items. Both of you refuse to address your concerns in a calm and rationale manner on the article Talk pages.

Both of you continually try to personalize my edits as if I am working against you. My only mission is to improve content so that it accurately describes what reliable sources have reported. You and Coretheapple seem to go out of your way to dispute reported facts, past Talk agreements, and Wikipedia guidelines that are not convenient for you. When you do have good points that require editing of my material as you frequently do, I do not accuse you of edit warring because you see something different from me. Based on your actions and comments, you are both making it very difficult to trust or believe what you have to say.

The article editing can be an iterative process of mutual back and forth editing based on History comments that explain each editor's rationale until a mutually agreeable compromise is worked out. Editors do not have to start falsely accusing someone else of edit warring, just because the initial set of revisions that are being made about a specific item does not immediately gain acceptance.

Are we going to work this out on the article Talk page, along with other editors, or are you both going to continually to come to my Talk page and waste my time? Wondering55 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think I have time to read this long tirade you are wrong. Please summarize your comments in a few lines, we are here to edit an encyclopedia. Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you continue to use inflammatory, inappropriate, denigrating, and inaccurate comments (which are in violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette), like "long tirade", even after I pointed out to you that it it is objectionable.

There is absolutely nothing for me to summarize for you. Start reading where your name is bold highlighted in my previous response and respond if you are interested. It's 4 very straight forward, short paragraphs for you to read.

You seem to have a lot of time to repeatedly delete and question my edits without cause and in contradiction to article Talk discussions and to make repeated allegations on my Talk page and elsewhere, which are in contradiction to the facts, reliable sources, and past Talk agreements. Wondering55 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop cluttering up the talk page of Fort Lee lane closure scandal with wall-of-text personalized arguments and ad hominem attacks. That is not what is meant by "taking it to the talk page." It actually is the opposite of seeking to find a consensus. Removing an administrator's warning[9] is also inadvisable. If you continue on this course, you will only makes things hard for yourself. Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have posted the following message on your Talk page. If you need to respond, do not come to my Talk page since you are no longer welcome. Feel free to respond on your Talk page.

Instead of responding, as I requested, on the "Fort Lee lane closure scandal" article to the content issues that I raised in the three links in the "Please respond" Talk that I opened earlier today on your Talk page, you go on my Talk page and make more false and unwarranted allegations and implied threats about my personal behavior on Wikipedia.

I have also repeatedly indicated on my Talk page and in the article page to simply focus on content issues that I raise and not engage in personal attacks.

Please stop making false allegations and unwarranted threats about my personal behavior on Wikipedia and misrepresentation of how I have tried to repeatedly work with you to address content issues. You continually refuse to focus on content issues that I raise, and instead make false allegations and unwarranted threats on my Talk page about my personal behavior on Wikipedia. You also make further denigrating comments on the Fort Lee article Talk page about my edits. You repeatedly revert my edits without any substantiated reasons and which are in contradiction to article Talk discussions where you participated.

That is simply in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Edit warring.

You are the one making ad hominum attacks, not me. I simply indicate exactly what you have done based on the incontrovertible facts of Talk discussions, your editing, your personal attacks on me & my editing, and your refusal to address content issues that I raise.

My recommended edits that I present in the article and its Talk pages are supported by reliable sources, past editing practices of responsible editors, including myself, that have made so many contributions to the Fort Lee article without any personal attacks or edit warring, and article Talk discussion and consensus. I have always been flexible in allowing other editors to make improvements to my edits without any contentious arguments.

You have taken your contentious and invalid arguments and personal attacks to a level that I have never seen before in any of my extensive editing on Wikipedia.

In the future, please direct all comments about my editing and content issues to the article Talk pages or in your History edit comments.

You are no longer welcome on my Talk page. If you post anything further on my Talk page, I will report you. Wondering55 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

____________________________________

I have posted the following message on Cwobeel's Talk page. If you need to respond, do not come to my Talk page since you are no longer welcome. Feel free to respond on your Talk page.

I have repeatedly indicated on my Talk page and in the article page to simply focus on content issues that I raise and not engage in personal attacks.

Please stop making false allegations, denigrating comments, and unwarranted threats about my personal behavior on Wikipedia and misrepresentation of how I have tried to repeatedly work with you to address content issues. You continually refuse to focus on content issues that I raise, and instead make false allegations, denigrating comments, and unwarranted threats on my Talk page, and now on your Talk page, about my personal behavior on Wikipedia. You also make further denigrating comments on the Fort Lee article Talk page about my edits. You repeatedly revert my edits without any substantiated reasons and which are in contradiction to article Talk discussions where you participated.

That is simply in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Edit warring.

My recommended edits that I present in the article and its Talk pages are supported by reliable sources, past editing practices of responsible editors, including myself, that have made so many contributions to the Fort Lee article without any personal attacks or edit warring, and article Talk discussion and consensus. I have always been flexible in allowing other editors to make improvements to my edits without any contentious arguments.

You have taken your contentious and invalid arguments and personal attacks to a level that I have never seen before in any of my extensive editing on Wikipedia.

In the future, please direct all comments about my editing and content issues to the article Talk pages or in your History edit comments.

I look forward to see if you can make your case for content updates on the article talk page and History edit comments. If your actual or proposed updates contradict reliable sources, facts, and past Talk agreements, I will simply point it out in the article simply based on content issues. I've learned a lesson from my interactions with you. I am now working within Wikipedia guidelines. Hopefully, you will too. You have added a lot of good content to the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article. Hopefully, we can work together in the future.

You are no longer welcome on my Talk page. If you post anything further on my Talk page, I will report you. Wondering55 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sympathies

Man does all this sound way too familiar; no matter what you say, the "walls of text" rant gets fielded and more anti-AGF and direct NPAs are made by those accusing you of same..... there seems to be no cure for this kind of thing; they are relentlessly narrow-minded and judgmental/condemnatory and any avenue of recourse is similarly skewed by the cesspit of negativity that is the wikipedia "backroom"; and apparently designed that way.....as is the apparent immunity of admins to abuse and distort guidelines as they please....we're not alone, that's for sure; how many hours/days of what could be productive work on the encyclopedia itself are being wasted by such gamesmanship huh?Skookum1 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wondering55 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)