Talk:23rd Street (Manhattan)

message: True or false: this article should be moved to West 23rd Street (New York) to clarify the city it is from in case there is another road with the same name in a different city in the United States. Because Wikipedia is not a local encyclopedia, there is no advantage of discriminating against regions of the United States other than New York City. 66.32.242.236 21:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If a street needs a signifier, it might be a sign that it's not an encyclopedia article. Fifth Avenue or Madison Avenue or Broadway, or Pall Mall, Ginza or Champs-Elysées etc don't need signifiers, and they are encyclopedia material. North Elm Street, Mytown isn't encyclopedic, but Elm Street might redirect to Nightmare on Elm Street. Think of getting useful information to a reader, and you'll rarely go wrong!. Wetman 21:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: The editor Northamerica1000, who is an admin and should know better, appears to want to force his changes into this article over the objections of other editors, specifically myself, without any discussion here on the talk page, which is, of course, not the way things work here on Wikipedia, which Northamerica1000 should know. I suggest he present his arguments for changing this rather stable article here so they can be discussed by myself and other editors interested in this topic. Continuing to make changes to the article without discussion is contrary to the ethos of Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's discuss. Why did you revert every single edit I performed, rather than just the ones you disagree with? I'm editing to improve this article, not to affect you in some manner as you suggested in your edit summary (diff). My edits are almost all policy/guideline based, as evidenced in the revision history for the article, where I cited various policy/guideline pages with links. So, you reverted changes that were clear improvements to the article, moved images back to incorrect sections that do not mention content in the images, restored multiple wikilinks when only one is appropriate in the article, removed image captions that improved the article, moved the portal link against guidelines, etc. Please keep in mind that you do not own the page, and I am more than willing to discuss. In the spirit of collaboration, I will redo some of the obvious work that improved the article, but will not blanket revert as you have performed. Also, simple changes that are are in full accordance with policies and guidelines do not all need to be discussed first. That said, in the spirit of WP:BRD, I am more than willing to discuss, if you are. North America1000 08:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so you are an editor who robotically follows every MOS guideline, despite the fact that they are not mandatory, despite the fact that they may be wrong in the particular case, despite that other choices may be better for our readers, and improve the article.  You just blindly do whatever MOS tells you to do, without thought or consideration.  Is that what you're saying.  Did you put any thought into the choices you made, or did you simply apply a preset set of rules without any considerationb whatsoever?  Can you explain -- without resorting to the quotation of chapter and verse from MOS -- how each of these edits actually improves the article?  I'm looking here for the thoughts of a human being, a reasoning person, not something that any properly programmed bot could do. Pleaase justify each of these changes intrinsically, and not by application of rote rule-following.  Perhaps you're right about some of them, perhaps we might agree, but making changes just because MOS told you to is almost never acceptable -- unless you're planning to have Wikipedia editors totally replaced by bots. BMK (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: *Since you, an admin, have decided to peremptorily restore all your changes, despite their being disputed, and despite there being no consensus here for them, I have decided to throw in the towel, leave the article in the state you left it in, and unwatch it.  You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of what WP:CONSENSUS means and how WP:BRD works, and prefer instead to WP:EDITWAR.  I have made note of this, and of your slavish irrational commitment to following every word in the MOS (which is a guideline, and neither policy nor mandatory), and for these reasons, antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia, I consider you unfit to be an admin. BMK (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *As stated above, I did not restore all changes, just some. The blanket reversion you performed did not qualify, as described above relative to WP:BRD, because they clearly served to improve the article. Upon reviewing the revision history, your edits are primarily the removal of content; perhaps you have become accustomed to only removing content. I feel that you have ownership issues with this article, and for whatever reasons, are taking matters personally (diff). How did my edits not improve the article? Do you prefer for images to be outside of sections that discuss their content, for multiple duplicate links to be present in the same paragraph, for image captions to provide little or no context, incorrect capitalization in articles, etc.? I feel that you are the one edit warring, as per your blanket removal of article improvements based upon having feeling personally slighted for whatever reasons, and as further evidenced by your ad hominem comments on this page that thus far lack any discussion about the actual content of the article itself. North America1000 21:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes by Northamerica1000

message: The following are some changes I performed to improve the article. They did not qualify for blanket reversion as occurred (diff), because these edits are all significant improvements, and are also policy/guideline-based. WP:BRD states that reversions should occur if "an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement". However, as stated, these are all clear, policy-based improvements. North America1000 08:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so you are an editor who robotically follows every MOS guideline, despite the fact that they are not mandatory, despite the fact that they may be wrong in the particular case, despite that other choices may be better for our readers, and improve the article.  You just blindly do whatever MOS tells you to do, without thought or consideration.  Is that what you're saying.  Did you put any thought into the choices you made, or did you simply apply a preset set of rules without any considerationb whatsoever?  Can you explain -- without resorting to the quotation of chapter and verse from MOS -- how each of these edits actually improves the article?  I'm looking here for the thoughts of a human being, a reasoning person, not something that any properly programmed bot could do. Pleaase justify each of these changes intrinsically, and not by application of rote rule-following.  Perhaps you're right about some of them, perhaps we might agree, but making changes just because MOS told you to is almost never acceptable -- unless you're planning to have Wikipedia editors totally replaced by bots. BMK (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since you, an admin, have decided to peremptorily restore all your changes, despite their being disputed, and despite there being no consensus here for them, I have decided to throw in the towel, leave the article in the state you left it in, and unwatch it.  You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of what WP:CONSENSUS means and how WP:BRD works, and prefer instead to WP:EDITWAR.  I have made note of this, and of your slavish irrational commitment to following every word in the MOS (which is a guideline, and neither policy nor mandatory), and for these reasons, antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia, I consider you unfit to be an admin. BMK (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *As stated above, I did not restore all changes, just some. The blanket reversion you performed did not qualify, as described above relative to WP:BRD, because they clearly served to improve the article. Upon reviewing the revision history, your edits are primarily the removal of content; perhaps you have become accustomed to only removing content. I feel that you have ownership issues with this article, and for whatever reasons, are taking matters personally (diff). How did my edits not improve the article? Do you prefer for images to be outside of sections that discuss their content, for multiple duplicate links to be present in the same paragraph, for image captions to provide little or no context, incorrect capitalization in articles, etc.? I feel that you are the one edit warring, as per your blanket removal of article improvements based upon having feeling personally slighted for whatever reasons, and as further evidenced by your ad hominem comments on this page that thus far lack any discussion about the actual content of the article itself. North America1000 21:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes performed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 23rd Street (Manhattan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/05/garden/the-trendy-discover-nomad-land-and-move-in.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405042539/http://www.hotelchelsea.com/history.php to http://www.hotelchelsea.com/history.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the first link, as the article is available directly from the Times archive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 23rd Street (Manhattan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928054133/http://www.olr.com/timeline/1930_1949.asp to http://www.olr.com/timeline/1930_1949.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 23rd Street (Manhattan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008033339/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5703 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5703
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008033400/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5701 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5701
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 23rd Street (Manhattan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170802093812/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140424/gramercy/baruch-colleges-oldest-building-gets-nearly-100m-upgrade to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140424/gramercy/baruch-colleges-oldest-building-gets-nearly-100m-upgrade
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 23rd Street (Manhattan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170305031317/http://www.straphangers.org/pokeyaward/pokey03.html to http://www.straphangers.org/pokeyaward/pokey03.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified