Talk:New York State Route 231

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

U.S. Roads: New York C‑class Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Locations	New York
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Babylon-Northport Expressway details[edit]

The route and interchanges of the formerly proposed Babylon-Northport Expressway are still needed for this article. Originally when I wrote the article it had such a description until TMF falsely accused me of plagiarism and deleted it. I saved the older version from Answers.com on my computer, but now I whenever I try to click my saved file, I get a blank white space, which I didn't have when I originally saved it. ----DanTD (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely, my ass. The old article had several sections copied verbatim from several pages on NYCRoads. Again, if you believe my deletion was unjustified, take it to deletion review. Complaining on a talk page about it isn't going to do any good. – T M F 17:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, if the shoe fits, wear it. If the text is a verbatim copy of another website that isn't released under a Creative Commons or similar license, it's a copyright infringement (plagiarism) and must be deleted. That's just policy around here. You're welcome to add in the missing information, but you must do so in a non-infringing manner. In other words, paraphrase the original text in your own words, not the words of the source website. You may quote short passages if necessary, but not the whole page. Imzadi 1979 → 17:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The details are still important to the article. This was more the point of this post than TMF's deletion of the original version. Contrary to his allegeations, this was not a verbatim copy of the NYCRoads website. Unfortunatley with no traces of the original version left, taking anything to deletion review is going to be more difficult. ----DanTD (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is used all the time to undelete stuff. Dan, even more to the point, how did the original of this article and the NYCRoads website get the same wording? If you have some proof that the website plagiarized Wikipedia, you'll need to provide it. (It's possible even though Wikipedia content is GFDL/CC licensed, attribution that WP content is being reused is required. Without that attribution, it's an infringement of the WP copyrights.) When the potential infringement was discovered, under policy, TMF had an obligation to remove the content. Since that content was present since the initial creation of the article, it meant deleting the whole article and recreating it with non-infringing content. If the potentially infringing content was added in at some point since creation, there are ways to delete that revision of the article. In any case, just removing the content from the current revision is not enough, since the infringing content would have been left in the article history. The onus is on you, the editor that added that content in the first place, to prove that you didn't infringe copyright in your editing. Until that is proven, the assumption is that it did infringe on the copyright held by NYCRoads and its creator(s).

I didn't say that the details about the expressway weren't important to the content of this article. Please feel free to add them back at any time, but do so without infringing copyright or giving the appearance of infringing copyright. Do the right thing by researching the information, writing the additions in your own words and attributing your source(s). If necessary, quote the source for short passages with attribution. Don't just copy the exact text without quotation, attribution or both. If any editor can't follow that basic method of article creation and expansion, that editor is not welcome as a contributor to this site. Imzadi 1979 → 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that NYCRoads plagerized Wikipedia. I've contributed to both, and I added details to the Wikipedia article that Steve Anderson(the webmaster) never added to his website. Coincidentally, his page has quotes from other contributors that the Wikipedia article never had. I'm glad you understand that the details are important, but reviving those details are going to be difficult without the previous version. ----DanTD (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? You're welcome to add information based on the website, and to attribute it. As TMF alludes to below, there's a website at http://www.archive.org that has the Internet Archive, or the "Wayback Machine". The site is a powerful tool that can be used to view previous versions of websites. I've used it to find copies of pages that went offline, or reorganized or whatnot. If the NY-231 section on NYCRoads doesn't have have information on it anymore, the Archive will have a copy of the older version of the website with the information. You don't need the previous version of this article to add the expressway information to this version of the article. You just need to add it and source it. Case closed. Imzadi 1979 → 18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to read what I'm saying, you'd see that I'm not asserting the whole article was a copyvio. What I am saying is that several paragraphs were lifted verbatim from NYCRoads, and that's enough to require the whole article be trashed and redone from scratch without the offending text. Whether the NYCRoads page had content that this article didn't or vice versa is irrelevant.

I should also add that I checked the Internet Archive to see which way the plagiarism went. The result was crystal clear: a July 2006 revision of NYCRoads had the text in question, one month prior to the creation of this article. – T M F 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried Internet Archive myself, and the only version I saw there was from September 13, 2006. I used to think that website was wonderful myself, until a lot of old content disappeared from there. I'm sure you're aware that there have been plenty of other edits of the old page since then. If that section of article needs to be redone, then fine. I'm perfectly willing to do it, but I want to keep it honest. I like the detail you and Mitch added to the existing section of the road, but I don't think the BNE should be completley overlooked. ----DanTD (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the BNE shouldn't be overlooked, then research the BNE and add the information to the article. We (TMF and I) agree that the article should have it, but it must be added in a proper fashion. Quit whining about things you can't change and do something. Either do the research properly and add the information, take the article to Deletion Review to get it restored/restored into your user space/whatever or stop complaining here. Those are your options, and I think we're done arguing with you. Imzadi 1979 → 19:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a previous version of the original article has been found gives me less of a reason to complain. Now that work can be done. Problem solved. ----DanTD (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drag racing?[edit]

DPA used to be a major mecca for hot rod cruising and drag racing. The practice, as I understand it, began in the 50s or 60s and wasn't really effectively dealt with until the early 2000s. Is this a topic that should be mentioned in the article? I've got a couple of New York Times sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to add it on the condition you can provide some good NY Times article. Other sources would help as well. Mitch32^{(The imitator dooms himself to hopeless mediocrity.)} 22:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've got this and this, both from the NYT. Looking for others. Much of the material might be print only based on the vintage of the information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to NYT archives. Mitch32^{(The imitator dooms himself to hopeless mediocrity.)} 02:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]