Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:09, 21 February 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: Los Angeles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Trains: Stations High‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Stations. This article lacks references.

Untitled

The 75 trains per week seems awfully low. The San Diego Santa Fe Depot sees 150 trains per week and I'm sure LAUPT sees far more trains. MrHudson

It is way too low. Metrolink alone has 75 daily departures.--Slightlyslack 10:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

LACMTA Red Line

The Union Station page is part of a larger effort to document the Red Line. It has been restored to it's original page. Pacific Coast Highway 02:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

merge with Union Station (LACMTA Station)?

Although I am generally an advocate of merging smaller articles into large articles, I don't think that this proposed merger serves the Misplaced Pages. One reason for not doing the mergier is that Union Station LA and Union Station LACMTA are really two different projects that just happen to be one on top of the other with very similar names. Another reason is that the Union Station is going to end up a big hodge-podge of info anyway once you add all the appropriate info on Amtrak and MetroRail, fill out the info on the history of the station, and then add some of the info from the To-do list such as the use of Union Station as a location in movies. BlankVerse ∅ 12:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on this one. As a current non-resident, I'm inclined to combine the two articles into one, but as a former resident, I also think they should remain separate. I've only visited the station once since the Red Line opened, but I seem to remember that the two stations operate more independently than an article merge would indicate. Am I right in remembering that the entry to one is completely separate from the other? If so, then the articles should remain separate (but at least mention and link to each other). slambo 13:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merge-Why not?! Pacific Coast Highway 13:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merge - Conditionally; if anything, Union Station (LACMTA) should be folded into Union Station (LA) as the latter is the more significant entity.--Lordkinbote 19:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merge - There are occasions when having separate articles serves a categorization purpose, but I can't find one here. Combining the articles will make the information more accessible to readers. -Willmcw 19:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

rail accidents associated with LAUPT

There are a couple of interesting accidents (and one photo!) listed at List of rail accidents. I won't get a chance to add them today, but will try to come back to this article sometime this next week. BlankVerse ∅ 13:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo swap?

I think the above photo is better, but since I took this photo, can someone else confirm that I'm not biased? --Padraic 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes to SWAP. Your photo is higher resolution, of course. Its only detraction is the nearby building peeking over Union Station's roof. Perhaps if the camera had been nearer the subject and lower to the ground the other building wouldn't appear. At any rate, I agree yours is a better composition and ought to take pride of place in this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not perfect, but so swapped. I encourage any LA Wikipedians to go to the station and try for a better shot - but I won't be back in LA anytime soon.--Padraic 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, top one better. I took one from the left front walk and couple from the court yard side. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox problem

As you can see here when using the template {{Rail color box}} a large box was inserted between the two busways. I could not figure out how to get rid of the box so I switched over to the {{Colorbox}} template. Hopefully someone knows how to fix this and can change it back to the original template. Butros (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent Page Redesign

While I appreciate the work that was done to attempt to improve the page's layout, I think the most recent series of edits should be undone. The page now has large amounts of blank space from infoboxes pushing the boarders of sections down. It is also much more confusing as the page's main info box does not include the information about all the lines. This page should be edited to make it more like other major US railway hubs and to eliminate the glaring white space.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I agree with you that the layout as it stands (including my changes) has some major problems. However, examples of articles using multiple infoboxes exist: one example is Grand_Central_–_42nd_Street_(New_York_City_Subway).

The only exception I would take that example is that that page is NYC's GCT is split up into two articles, one for the building and one featuring the subway stations. Since LAUS only features one subway platform for two lines, I do not think splitting up the article is necessary.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I am looking into this and I hope to have a solution in the next few days. I do ask you to please not undo my recent edits, since they include other changes that I think improved the article and made it more consistent with other articles. Thanks. -- Jcovarru (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One quick observation: like many other L.A. rail station pages, this one seems overly preoccupied with the details of all the various bus connections. That, plus the number rail lines, results in an article that lacks focus. -- Jcovarru (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Bunching

Tried to fix, using {{Fix bunching|...}} tags. Was causing more problems with the text, so I canceled the edit. Could someone with more experience in this area please make the correction? Thanks. Rpyle731 09:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Super Chief

Should there be a mention of the Super Chief somewhere in the text as well as in the caption? Seems like being the endpoint for such a well-known train is worth pointing out. Nareek (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial, contentious, or slanderous"

User:Oakshade has removed a citation needed tag in the introduction, saying that "this sentence is not controversial, contentious or slanderous." I'm wondering if this is some new standard for unsourced information I haven't heard of? WP:CHALLENGE says that "any material challenged" must be sourced, and the addition of the cn tag is a "challenge" by definition. The documentation for the cn template only mentions an exception for "common facts", which the renaming of this station is not. The documentation also states that the template should be used "when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided", which appears to fit this situation. --TorriTorri(/_contribs) 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting my admin hat on here, as I've seen the mini-war on the article page. Indeed, WP:BURDEN is fairly clear. I've taken the Judgment of Solomon approach. Here's what I removed:

Opened in May 1939, Union Station is known as the "Last of the Great Railway Stations" built in the United States, but even with its massive and ornate waiting room and adjacent ticket concourse, it is considered{{By whom}} small in comparison to other union stations.{{Citation needed}} It was formerly designated the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT), but its owner, Catellus Development, officially changed the name to Los Angeles Union Station.{{Citation needed}}

It's preserved here for wording and because it's likely correct. Feel free to re-add with sources. tedder (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a classic example of purely innocuous statements getting littered with citation tags just because an editor sees a statement without a citation. The "any material challenged" clause in WP:CHALLENGE is frequently abused, as I think it has here, and it frequently only serves to remove encyclopedic and useful content from the public. --Oakshade (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:V ("This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source") and Jimbo's statement ("..pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.") apply here. Maybe it doesn't seem likely to be challenged to you, but it was challenged. Thanks for finding sources. tedder (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, encyclopedic content had to be removed. If it wasn't for an excellent editor like myself who bothered to take the time to find, format and insert sources, then this valuable content wouldn't have been seen by the public. I'd rather spend my time doing actual improvement to articles than having to cater to the whims of lousy editors who can find nothing better to do than to carpet tag articles with easily verifiable content (not just "I heard it somewhere") just because they can abuse a statement Jimbo made years ago, which was really meant for controversial BLP content but is technically applied to everything.--Oakshade (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that none of this would have happened if you hadn't removed the cn tag in the first place. --TorriTorri(/_contribs) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please focus further energy at improving Misplaced Pages, not turning things into personal attacks. Additional sniping and pointy conversation will be dealt with. tedder (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes in ownership, expansion of retail at the station

As of 4/15/2011, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has completed the purchase of Union Station. http://thesource.metro.net/2011/04/14/metro-tonight-officially-becomes-new-owner-of-los-angeles-union-station/ The plan, reportedly, is to further redevelop the area and make it more of a destination!

Also, I was there just a week ago, after not having been through Union Station for about 6+ months -- there is now four new retail convenience food shops open: Subways, Starbucks, Wetzel's Pretzels, and Famima. This makes Union Station a far more comfortable place to hang out while waiting for your next train, and a nice transit point between the various light-rail, subway, bus, and heavy rail services.

I'm not sure how much of the above info should go in the main article. Toybuilder (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The ownership part should be covered, and maybe a line about the shops and approximately when they opened. Famima opened sometime around the end of the year, there's probably a LAT article about it. tedder (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, not the LA Times, but how's this for an article? http://www.csnews.com/article-all_aboard_famima__-1544.html Toybuilder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Major cleanup - 4 August 2011

I have given this article a pretty serious cleanup today. To be clear I have not added or removed any significant content, only rearranged it and removed duplication. It now has a lead geared towards saying first where it is first, then something about the services from it and finally then a small piece about the history/architecture. There is then a section on the location which needs more work but brings together all the extant text describing the layout of different parts of the station. This is followed by a section on services covering each type of service in order starting with the long-distance heavy rail services and ending with local bus servics. I have then placed history just before 'future expansion' followed by architecture and Film/TV etc. I hope people feel that this is an improvement. Happy to discuss my changes and I will now pause for 24 hours for comment before making further changes. People may notice that I have done a lot of work on many LA transport articles over the past 2 weeks but have delayed touching this article until I understood more about the system. PeterEastern (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this article really needs {{-}} templates. The infoboxes are sometimes in the wrong sections. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do add them back as you think appropriate. To be honest I was not that clear what they were doing for the article and may have been too enthusiastic in removing them. PeterEastern (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why you have added the {{-}} templates back but this creates rather uncomfortable breaks in the body text. Also.. there is a lot of duplication of information in boxes and body text (some introduced by me). Would it be possible to 'hide' some of the detail in these various infoboxes so it only appears if requested or alternatively remove some of this detail and place it in the body of the article where appropriate to balance the body text with the infoboxes better and get rid of the white space? PeterEastern (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I will say it again - because I keep getting reverted on this. The "line" parameter in the Infobox is redundant when "services" contains succession boxes for exactly the same lines. Clean those out, for a start, and see what that does for spacing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I have taken my chances at getting reverted by removing the line information from the infobox for the reason you give above. Would it be appropriate to now convert the MetroLink table that I copied from the MetroLink article into the previous/next type format or is that not appropriate for a mainline rail service? PeterEastern (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the "services" section in the infobox? I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Secondarywaltz is just referring to the "lines" parameter. I strongly object to removal of the "services" section in the infoboxe. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case could you adjust the infoboxes in the way you feel is appropriate? Another approach would be to combine information into a single infobox avoiding the need for {tl|-}} templates at all which is what I notice is done for other large US train stations such as Union Station (Chicago), San Francisco 4th and King Street Station and Pennsylvania Station (New York City).06:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have created a new section below for the discussion on infobox/line/service information arrangement. PeterEastern (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox rationalisation

The above cleanup section has raised a specific issue relating to infoboxes and I am creating a new section to discuss this issue. Can I suggest we review other station articles now with a view to reorganizing the information in this article to match what we see as 'best practice'. In particular I recommend reviewing these which are all large and use the same structure: Pennsylvania Station (New York City), Union Station (Chicago), Union Station (Washington, D.C.), Union Station (Denver, Colorado) and Union Station (Toronto). For me the main thing seems to be that other article have only one infobox with details about all relevant lines and services and don't repeat these tables in the body. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reworked the services into the main infobox and removed what seems to be a redundant secondary infobox. I have also removed duplicated service information from the body text. It seems like a big improvement to me. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better. I never really liked the separate infoboxes in this case. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. So other than a further clean-up pass through each section and sorting out why the 'lines' don't display in the infobox I think it is in good shape now. Does anyone have any ideas why they don't display?PeterEastern (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Although this is an older conversation, I wanted to respond to the above question about the 'lines' section not displaying. In the infobox, "line" is defined twice, with the second definition completely empty. It is located directly above the long "services" definition (there is also a second "service" definition above the second "line" definition). Since it is empty, it overwrites the previous "line" definition. Remove the redundant parameter and it will work.

I already made the correction, but was reverted by an anonymous user citing this discussion. Therefore, I will leave the changes to someone associated with this article. I would recommend either: fix the error and display the information, or completely remove unwanted information. It is generally never a good idea to rely on a computer bug to display information correctly.Skyman9999 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The infobox seems fine to me, more or less, but the real problem is the shifting of all the other images to the right that's creating that huge whitespace. ----DanTD (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Errata - Aerial Photo

I'm confused. Is the aerial photo from the Late 1940's or Late 1990's (more likely). The article seems to indicate both. Wayne Loomis (Dr. Detail) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.3.77 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more likely from the 1940's. Aerial photos in the 90's weren't so grainy. 50.178.161.154 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"The MTA Building is a 398 ft (121 m) high rise office tower in Los Angeles, California. Completed in 1995". No high rise building in Los Angeles in 1940s. Ucla90024 (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Platforms

Question, the infobox says that Metrolink and Amtrak has 6 island platforms at the station. I'm aware they share tracks and platforms, but I only count 5 island platforms of Metrolink and Amtrak (and one additional island for the Metro Gold Line) on Bing Map's aerial of the site. Is the map outdated, or am I missing the platform somewhere? I count the Metro Gold platforms first behind the station building, and then 5 additional metrolink/amtrak islands behind that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: On Google Maps, it looks like the easternmost platform was constructed recently, so Bing Maps is probably just outdated. Additionally, maps from Metrolink and Metro both show six platforms. Conifer (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what is it. The Bing Maps don't show the easternmost platform. I used to use Google Maps until they monkeyed around with the format. BTW, when was this new platform constructed? And, actually, I have a second question. I'm looking at the Google map aerial, right now, and I actually spotting an additional platform north of the underground concourse, and west of the furthest east Metrolink platform. It's unconvered. What is that platform? I thought it might be for the BRT stop, but that appears to be all the way on the other side of the station. So, what I'm now seeing - from west to east - is the Metro Gold platform, six platforms for Metrolink/Amtrak, and then this uncovered platform wedged at the northeast corner of the station complex. Maybe, it's just a concrete streetway which looks like a platform, because I see markings on it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Platform 7 was rebuilt to original specification in 2012. There were originally 8 platforms, but at some point 7 and 8 were removed and the tunnels filled in. The new platform 7 looks almost identical to those built in the 1930's, you really wouldn't know. You can see pictures of the new platform at and a youtube video of the opening ceremony it at this YouTube link. I suppose this should be included in the article. I'll ask the photographer if he can release some shots into PD. Lexlex (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Go to the google aerial of this to help me with one more thing. Look at platform 7 (13 & 14) where the shed ends, and then look directly across the double tracks to the east at this point. Right on the other side of the doube tracks appears to be some concrete section that stretches all the way down to about where the underground concourse is. Is this an additional platform of any kind of is it an optical illusion? It looks to be another platform. --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost positive it's a concrete section of pavement within the fire lane. Note that "KEEP CLEAR FIRE LANE" is painted over both the asphalt and concrete section within the lane, so doubtful it's a raised platform. Lexlex (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What photographs should we use?

I am not fond of the images captioned “Metro Gold Line train at Union Station” and “The platform view of the Red Line and Purple Line.” and “The upper floor view of the Red Line and Purple Line station platforms” because they are really rather dull, don’t show any passengers and don’t contribute to any understanding of this particular railroad station. What do others think? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That "Union Station bus stop for El Monte Busway services" image is pretty awful, too. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Those photos don't do much to illustrate what these platforms look like. They need to provide a wider view of the platform, preferably with passengers and trains visible. After all, these platforms are a unique part of Union Station and very different architecturally from the rest of the 75 year old station. I suggest we go to Flickr to find creative commons images that are more appropriate. Here are some suggestions for better photos for the Red/Purple and Gold lines. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe platform view images that I uploaded for Red and Purple Line are both needed, since they're available for other metro pages. Uniformity is a must for metro pages. Some say it isn't efficient, but I believe it is what these pages need. For example, you have the Seoul Subway station pages in Korean having all the same platform view images (https://ko.wikipedia.org/종각역, https://ko.wikipedia.org/종로5가역, https://ko.wikipedia.org/동묘앞역), and it looks fantastic; I'm trying to apply that same, impressing view for LA. And about the dullness, that is what the LA Metro is like, so unfortunately, even though it looks bad, it still well describes how the station looks like; as a metro enthusiast, I know what I want for Wiki pages based on metro stations: the image of how it's like there. You want to see of how their graphic design goes, also (the partial benefit the platform view gives). HanSangYoon (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree with HanSangYoon. We don't have to have all the subway or train station pages look alike: For the most part, they are all different, and all their pages should reflect the differerences. See Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I honestly cannot interpret your reasons because first of all, these metro pages could have more than one pictures; it isn't illegal to do so (I know this for sure since I re-read the Misplaced Pages rules just to see if I'm missing out on anything). And to show the platform images, some stations will have beautiful images at the background (Take example: Universial Studios Station or Hollywood/Highland Station). This is where you find differences for the platform images. Some stations do not have too much differences (but sensitive people eventually does find their way and is also one of the reasons why I'm against putting these pictures down), and so you have other images such as upper floor images, or lower floor images, since that's where they start to reflect the differences. Remember: Misplaced Pages is for everyone. There will be people who's fascinated with the indifference and start delving into it (not all people are the same). HanSangYoon (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I grant you that on the Korean Misplaced Pages page the sign on the platform is pictured at the top of each page... but that's not the uniform look used here on the English Misplaced Pages. Take a look at pages for Metro stations in New York, Chicago, Boston and Portland... in each case the main photo prominently shows a visually interesting wide view of the platform, often with passengers and trains visible.RickyCourtney (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter, Courtney? So just because it is a Korean Misplaced Pages they could do it, and because it's English Misplaced Pages, you can't? I am finding that opinion a bit strange. I believe Los Angeles Metro could have this format since its system is more organized compared to New York, Washington, or Chicago, and therefore could be done. The LA Metro stations are also more sophisticated and well-maintained, so it is well deserved to show something like this. Even if these additional reasons I provided sounds absurd, I still cannot agree with taking the photos out, and I will be waiting for the ultimate decision on these two pictures. Nothing to go against you, but I am against putting these pictures away until another better pictures make way. HanSangYoon (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

For my $0.02, I think the "Metro Gold Line train at Union Station" pic is actually OK (not great – and a picture like that, but of better quality, would be better still...), but it's OK enough that I'd leave it. I agree that the other two pics mentioned are weak and could go without any objection from me. --IJBall (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I could really care less of how dull it looks, for those images are the only images that describes the metro stations for Union Station, and I'm pretty sure there will be some who's wanting to see it; surely not everyone will ignore it. So rather than to delete it, I say put it up until a better, stronger picture comes in to push them away (in which I'll take care by the next two weeks). For now, however, I strongly stand with the point that it should be uploaded. Looks dull? Blame the metro staff and the architect who designed the station, not me who simply went there with effort to upload them for this page. Quality? Blame on my iPad Air. Eitherways repeating: I will try to get a more 'satisfying picture' for these pages (in fact, the entire stations- again).HanSangYoon (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PS IJBall, your Penny-worth advice was quite angering- please refrain from writing rhetorically.

Cooperation off-Misplaced Pages on articles

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should there be a cooperative group of people outside of Misplaced Pages who are making additions and suggesting policies for this and other articles? Go here for background on this question. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following messages are copied from the page mentioned just above:

Regarding the notice on your home page of the above title, kindly explain who these other editors are and direct us to the page where they decided to make these changes. Please also read Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never said that we own these articles, and never have we said anything about acting like so. We consist of people OUTSIDE of Misplaced Pages (in fact, my user is controlled not just be 'me', but several people (Credits: Han SangYoon, Simon H., Jonathan M. Daniele D.S, Bobby C., Trey V.T, J. Dong Hyun (HSYKorea), J. Ji Hoon (HSYKorea), K. Shoujyun/Nao Uruo (HSYJapan)). We share accounts, and we're working together under one account as our favor. Some here in LA take pictures for the LA metro pages (Simon H., Jonathan Menyhart), then I upload them. So whatever it is, I'm just organizing the metro pages for their benefit, and just because I have a big list on the bottom of my homepage doesn't mean I own it. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Take note of what I said on the bottom of the page: Our edits follow the rules of Misplaced Pages in all dimensions and every way. New photos were made by us, and we are also adjusting the pattern of the subways are the sign placard on the top (just like most other subway pages). HanSangYoon (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not nice. Read Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. I am assuming your good faith, but this is not the way the encyclopedia is fashioned. Thanks, and I hope you guys decide to do all of your future planning within WP and not outside of it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That meat puppetry isn't related to my account. the three different regional accounts aren't sepearte; they're all one account used in different languages, so Korean or Japanese HSY account cannot interfere into the English one. What is this link for again? HanSangYoon (talk)

So you accuse other users of using multiple accounts, when it's quite possible they don't. But, you think it's okay to have multiple people using one account? Who are we talking to at each time? How do we know who is editing what? I see problems with this. --Allamericanbear (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And how does this affect the Misplaced Pages page? It isn't illegal to have several people team for a user, AllAmericanBear, at least I wouldn't sock puppet multiple users under a single account in the first place. And your reference to Secondarywaltz is illegitimate once again, since I never said that user was 100% a sock puppet; I wanted this user investigated as suspicion. By the way, tell me how multiple users using one account a bad thing, AllAmericanBear. Let's see how you defend to this issue. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote: You have been breaking the three-revert policy by using multiple accounts, which is not an okay action to do. You have been undoing so many of my work for the Los Angeles Metro pages, and I've already warned you not to do such an action again unless you were reasonable. However, you used four accounts in total to undo my reverts, and four times. I've REALLY had enough with your logic-less actions. HanSangYoon (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC) You didn't say "I think", you said "you have been breaking the three revert policy". What is misunderstood with that comment? --Allamericanbear (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And exactly what kind of logic again did you use when you placed this unrelated comment here? I made a proper statement and you're picking out criticism so pitifully...maybe that 'I think' issue was a mistake, but really? You're trying too hard to criticize me. HanSangYoon (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also to GeorgeLouis, do you notice this is a talk page for Union Station? The private discussion you just made public isn't a good idea. I appreciate none of it.HanSangYoon (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Innocence? Your peers on here will clear you of all wrongdoing. Your bullying actions are not logical ways of dealing with this.--Allamericanbear (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I advise you not to make up false facts that I'm the bully here. I'm the mortified one here, and I am simply trying to get my issues cleared. I believe there is something amiss with Secondarywaltz, so I requested an investigation, and what, eavesdroppers decide to criticize me for that? You're the one currently bullying, not me. I don't have any wrongdoings, so stop making yourself one by lying here. HanSangYoon (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Requesting an investigation is one way to go. Let your peers decide once and for all. I'm definitely waiting for the outcome on this. --Allamericanbear (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• B-Class Los Angeles articles
• Mid-importance Los Angeles articles
• Los Angeles area task force articles
• WikiProject California articles
• B-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
• Mid-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
• B-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class rail transport articles
• High-importance rail transport articles
• B-Class Stations articles
• WikiProject Stations articles
• All WikiProject Trains pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, trains
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment