User talk:Alzarian16

This user may have left Wikipedia. Alzarian16 has not edited Wikipedia since August 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Here to tell me off for getting something really obviously wrong? Suggest if for inclusion here!

Archives:

WP:RFA2011

Hi. As I feel your statistics are vital to this project, I have transcluded them to WP:RFA2011/VOTING. You may wish to join the various discussions at the RfA reform project if you have not already done so. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad they were useful. With a bit of luck there should be a few improvements coming soon, not that I haven't thought that before...

The project seems to have made a fair amount of progress since the last time I looked. I don't think I have much to add to the current discussions, but I'll watchlist it and see if I want to get involved later. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to put all the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist. The list of pages in the pink box near the top of each project sub page. BTW: if you find any glaring omissions in any of the stats etc., do feel free to add them yourself. The ones about low and high voter turnout I mad myself manually so there's quite likely to be some minor errors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do that. The next thing I have in mind after the latest updates, funnily enough, is a Pearson's chi-square test (that article needs some work) for association between level of participation and success/failure. (It'll probably just be for 2010 given the numbers involved, and ignore SNOW/NOTNOWs for obvious reasons.) At least that should tell us if My76Strat's idea has any basis behind it. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suddenly realised I had not answered your question. I'm not a statistician so there is little I understand about Pearson's chi-square test. Nevertheless, if you think it is useful, please go ahead. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, slipped into jargon there. Basically it's a way of testing for association between two variables by using the fact that if they aren't associated they would follow the chi-square distribution, a standard distribution in statistics. The results can be seen on the page now. The evidence for association is very weak, and nothing like enough to be confident of association. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:What links Here

I have blocked What links Here (talk · contribs) as a (rather obvious) sock of Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 03:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA2011 - task force news

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for British Coachways

On 22 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British Coachways, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the site of the coach station in London used by the British Coachways consortium between 1980 and 1982 is now occupied by the British Library? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Per your request

Hello Alzarian16. I wanted to let you know that I have taken to heart your comments about disliking the term "trainspotting" that I was using in my edit summaries. I am trying to use the correct policy acronyms like OR etc. I also wanted to say that I hope that you will restore any of my removals that you can source if you are so inclined. Thanks for prodding me to be more precise in my edit summaries and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to hear it! It's a pity others are less open-minded. Good luck with the cleanup. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry

I am extremely sorry for accusing you of personal attacks. I misread your comments and I guess I failed to assume good faith. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However Alzarian, you might want to clarify your comments at Guoguo's talk (add something like "good to see you back"), since at first glance, it does appear that you are encouraging his retirement. Thanks Ryan! Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alzarian! Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 04:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for pointing it out. I didn't even consider the possibility that it could be interpreted that way, which is stupid since it's an obvious way of reading it. I'll try to be more careful in future. Alzarian16 (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed deletion of James R. Wigginton

The article James R. Wigginton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability never established.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Alzarian16. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

merging

Should i add a template to this merge proposal [1] ? Pass a Method talk 14:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, {{merge}} should cover it. Strictly speaking the discussion is meant to go on the target page's talk page, but I don't think anyone will mind where you've put it. The only difficulty might be specifying two possible merge targets, so it might be easier just to name one on the article. Cheers. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Alzarian16. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

London Buses route X26

Hello Alzarian16,

On London Buses route X26, I put: "Quality Line has sucssesfully gained contract for route X26 and from 30 June 2012 will be operating it. Bus types are still to be confirmed, however they are likely to be Mercedes Benz Citaros for route X26."

Then you went and removed this because "Since TfL have yet to officially confirm this, we should wait before we say so, per WP:CRYSTAL"

But it has been confirmed on here: http://www.londonbusroutes.net/changes.htm#270

And on here:

http://www.lots.org.uk/ (Click on the "News" on the panel on the left, scroll down until you see "Latest News" and look at the section that says Wednesday 3 August)

Thank you C.bonnick (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, neither of those showed up when I tried to find something to verify it. Based on those it should be fine to put it back in the article now. If you want to avoid this happening again, you should probably reference such pieces directly in the article, or in theory anyone can remove it for being unsourced. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the advice, I will reference articles in the future. C.bonnick (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Interview

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject London Transport for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brought to you by Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 19:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bohemian F.C. players

OK, now I'm confused. Last year you supported the creation of the list here as an alternative to the large number of articles on non-notable Bohemians players. What's prompted the change of heart? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) (note: copied from User talk:GiantSnowman to keep discussion together)[reply]

At the time, I was under the belief that the list would follow a similar format to List of Arsenal F.C. players; however, that has not panned out (it is currently the amalgamation of biographies of two non-notable players!) and there is no sign of any immediate improvement or sourcing. Therefore, as it currently stands, I can no longer support its existence. Giant Snowman 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, and that list is very good, but there's a fundamental difference: the vast majority of Arsenal's players have an article each, while very few Bohemians players do. As such, more biographical content is inevitable. Sourcing is definitely a concern, but could probably be fixed (here's one for Tommy Byrne for example), and being in a bad state now doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't exist at all. And with pages like Paddy Andrews still occupying places in the extremely large Category:Bohemian F.C. players, perhaps the existance of a (much expanded) list is a better alternative to hundreds of separate articles. So instead of deleting the list, how about we start merging the separate articles in, and improve it from there? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the page hasn't been touched since November 2010, and until you suggested getting involved, there looked to be no motivation by anyone to sort out the problems that exist on the page. If the player's stats can be found + referenced a la Arsenal, then perfect - however, I wouldn't suggest merging in dozens of articles in their entirety i.e. it should be a stats table, not brief biography after brief biography. Giant Snowman 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, it seems I was wrong when I said sourcing concerns could probably be fixed. The last link I gave seems to be totally inaccurate, since it stops in 1993 despite other sources suggesting that he was still playing at least eight years later ([2]). Apparently no reliable database of player records exists for Irish football, so sourcing most of the details might well be impossible. Maybe deletion does make sense after all - although what we do with the 427 player articles I don't know. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they fail WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG (as many of them will do), then I suggest taking to PROD and then AfD if needed. Giant Snowman 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bohemian F.C. players. Giant Snowman 14:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-and-paste page moves

Hello, Alzarian16. Concerning your contribution, Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2011, a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license. As a violation of the page move process, Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2011 needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2011 has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either the page you intended to move or Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2011 until the latter has been deleted according to Wikipedia's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you did not intend to make a page move, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. An administrator will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. Thank you for your contributions. jorgenev 18:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to check your facts before making edits like this. I merged two related articles into one at the correct title, as encouraged by Wikipedia:Merging amongst others. Somebody else removed most of the original content as inappropriate for an encyclopedia, so I suppose at first glance it might have looked like the content had been copied to a new page, but a ten-second history check would have shown that this wasn't the case. All you had to do was tag the talk page with {{copied}}, which I should have done but forgot to (another editor did it later), and the process would have worked exactly as it's intended to. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of Alex Day for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

History of Indian football

Hey Mate, thanks for your input on the page. If I may say though I think the author of the Hard Tackle article may have copied it from me. I am just saying because once again all that information was put on other pages before July 4th, I only put all that information into one article in August. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 WikiCup participation

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Counties conundrum

As I'm sure you've heard, Arriva Southern Counties is being rearranged from 1st January 2012 - which is going to cause some problems to us here, especially as there'll be a license called "Arriva Southern Counties Ltd". Do you have any ideas? Aside from having separate articles for all old divisions, all new ones, and the "Arriva Southern Counties" article being very clear the name is the overall division's name, and now an operating license, I don't have any ideas. Can you think of anything?! Arriva436/talk/contribs 20:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm really not concentrating. Firstly I forgot to sign, and then when I did sign I described it in the edit summary as "Reply"! Third time lucky, here goes... Arriva436/talk/contribs 20:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, happens to everybody :) Yeah, they seem to be making things about as complex as possible with some of these reorganisations. I can think of six options, but I don't really like any of them: separate articles for everything; one big article on the old divisions with separate articles for the new ones; leaving the existing articles roughly the same and adding new ones for the new divisions; moving the old divisional articles to cover their successors and changing the old titles to disambiguations; merging everything into a single article; or analysing each division on a case-by-case basis and seeing what deserves an article based on coverage in sources. Any way round there's still going to be a lot of work involved for whoever ends up taking this on... Alzarian16 (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the belated reply. Overall, three instead of six, with all the TfL routes on one license, will be more clear - but it's not half complicated in terms of getting to that stage!

Before

New Enterprise Coaches - already has its own article, and warrants it. Done
Arriva Guildford & West Surrey - already has its own article, and warrants it. Done
Arriva Southend - already has its own article, and warrants it. (All three of NE, G&WS and SE will obviously need details on their articles about the fact their ops license is no more) Done
Arriva Kent Thameside - already has its own article. It's a bit sparse, but there's easily enough stuff there to make a decent article. Doneish
Arriva Medway Towns - not sure this does warrant its own article, and doesn't have one currently. Not done
Arriva Kent & Sussex - probably does warrant its own article, but it doesn't have one at the moment. Not done

After - the three big licenses

Arriva Southern Counties Ltd - obviously there's already an article here, which will need to detail that it has become one of the operating licenses etc. So that's that one sorted. Done
Arriva Kent Thameside Ltd - this one thankfully keeps its name, and already has its own article which can be expanded, so that's pretty much done too. Done
Arriva Kent & Medway Ltd - a tougher one to do. Not done

So, that leaves the three things marked "Not Done" if you agree?

I'd like to see a separate Kent & Sussex article at some point in the future, but what we've got currently I'd suggest stays at the Arriva Southern Counties article in the meantime, which can explain everything and as mentioned above will cover the old and new use of the name.

That leaves Arriva Medway Towns and Arriva Kent & Medway. I don't think these warrant two separate articles, so I'd suggest having one article, Arriva Kent & Meadway, which will cover the old Medway Towns stuff (Arriva Medway Towns will redirect to this).

Do you have any other thoughts? I did think we could do it based on which licenses are being withdrawn (New Ent., G&WS & Southend) and which are being renamed (Kent & Sussex and Medway Towns) but the actual legal details of that are rather insignificant and perhaps confusing.

Luckily, I have just heard that the change has been deferred, so we've got some more time!! Arriva436/talk/contribs 20:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about belated replies, it's not like I'm any more reliable. I pretty much agree with you. The only issue might be where to find sources for Kent & Medway, which doesn't seem to have attracted as much coverage as I would have expected. Maybe in the short term it would be easier to cover this as part of the main Arriva Southern Counties article, or would that be more confusing since it isn't technically the same? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That sort of plan seems like the best option to pursue then. Regarding Medway Towns, there's not loads, but I do think there's a number of notable things about it:

1) More recently, the City Status bus - http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Bus-paint-job-backs-city-bid/story-12014368-detail/story.html , http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Bus-company-backing-rival-city-status-bid/story-12007946-detail/story.html

2) The unfortunate fatal accident in Rochester - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7300231/Bus-driver-ran-down-man-who-complained-about-damage-to-truck.html / http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/newsarchive.aspx?articleid=60032&pictureno=3

3) Good old Operation Overdrive - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overdrive_(transportation) (there's some broken links on that article but their titles throw up other things and ideas of things to search: http://democracy.medway.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1753). http://www.epolitix.com/Resources/epolitix/MPWebsites/Images/a-b/Bob%20Marshall-Andrews%20Autumn%2004.pdf.

4) The bus stations. Using the ***hole of Pentagon bus station in itself is notable, but then there's the 42-year lease, the Competition Comission (http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2010/localbus/pdf/medway_council.pdf)... and various other controversies surrounding the new bus station there and the transition... http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2011/september/16/bus_station.aspx

There's also this: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2009/october/30/arriva_facing_fines_for_being.aspx The Kent Online search function (http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/searchkl.aspx?searchsite=arriva+&range=0&postcode=&collection=default_collection) throws up a lot of stuff, so I think there should hopefully be enough stuff to put a separate article together.

Also found these: The worst e-petition ever! http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3670 and also

http://www.medwaylabour.org.uk/letter-to-arriva---concerns-about-local-buses Arriva436/talk/contribs 16:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well found - I didn't manage anything like that much. (I'm one of the <5% of people who liked the old Pentagon bus station, so perhaps I shouldn't write that bit...) Have you seen whose name the petition is in? That wouldn't be anyone we know would it?!

And while we're here, we ought to improve that Operation Overdrive article too. I just lost access to my useful offline sources for the next few weeks, but there seems to be enough material around to make something useful of it. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon was one of the worst places I've ever been to, and by far the worst bus station I've ever seen! Horrible place in my opinion, all fumy and no natural light at all round the back. Urgh. The new bus station isn't brilliant, being open to the elements, but that doesn't improve Pentagon!

Lol - I hadn't noticed the name until you pointed it out. It must be! Operation Overdrive could be better - and could do with some pictures too. I'm busy with exams etc for the next few weeks, but I'll try and create the Medway Towns article after that. Arriva436/talk/contribs 19:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fumy I'll give you, but I liked the lighting. And it was undercover, had good access to shops, nice ramps for photography and plenty of space for passengers and buses (unlike Maidstone)... and maybe the Volvo Citybuses and Dennis Dominators helped a bit. I've got exams coming up too so I probably won't be too much help for a while, but I'll join you on Medway Towns as soon as possible. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In McGill's Bus Services, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Hispano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ScottyBerg's email

My point to ScottyBerg is that unless one has a verified email address in their preferences, they have no option for emailing other users -- you can't even see the "E-mail this user" option in the userpage toolbox. So how did ScottyBerg come to email you in the first place? There's likely an easy explanation...I'm just curious to know what it is. --Purgedclub (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, fair point. The email was definitely sent through the Wikipedia system, but beyond that I couldn't tell you very much. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southfield Grammar School

Not sure what you're getting at here Alzarian16, this is a former name of the school so where better to put the cat?Bashereyre (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ye-es... I'd already decided not to get involved in this unproductive timesink, and an unbelievably generic message from a bot based on one edit I made a year ago isn't going to change that. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is cordially invited...

...ici

Egg Centri c 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there, thanks for the note. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited The Keys of Marinus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Chase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Thanks for keep !voting at Coastliner 700. Your points were well made, and it seems like a bus AfD field day today; half the log is bus articles. Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There do seem to have been a lot of nominations lately, but the difference is that some of the others are actually justifiable. And at least we're less badly off that people who focus on air crashes, which are being deleted with remarkable regularity lately. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when you edited the page yesterday, you said with good reason in your edit summary to discuss and bring it up somewhere, not keep reverting. That's what's been done. There's also a dispute about the reliable source. Can you come and see? Rcsprinter (natter) 16:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. When you recently edited Coastliner 700, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shoreham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alzarian16. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Alzarian16. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link in article 'British Rail Class 180'

Hi. The article 'British Rail Class 180' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://www.rcts.org.uk/branches/hitchin/hitchintraffic.htm

You added this in December 2009.
The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me split the Leyland Titan Article?

I suggest that it might be best to call the pre war bit Leyland Titans (TD1-8) and the Post War Bit Leyland Titan (PD and OPD), Hadn't realised how big it had got without my normal ==in service== and ==afterlife== sections.

Thanks for the link to the LTM website, I hope it works but I can't tell as yet

Stephen Allcroft (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Stephen Allcroft[reply]

Sorry I've been a bit slow replying to this - been away from my computer for a few days. I agree that the split would probably be justified, and the titles you suggest seem to make sense. We should probably carry on the discussion at the article talk page in case anyone else wants to weigh in, so I'll add a more detailed comment to the section you started there. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buses in Milton Keynes: Milton Keynes Coachway

Looking back through the history of Buses in Milton Keynes, I see it was you who added the [referenced] statement that before the Coachway was built, most [sic] long distance coaches called into CMK with only a few bypassing it. Can you check that reference again please? My strong memory was that the justification for building the coachway in the first place was that most coaches were not calling at MK and that this was the only way to persuade National Express to do so. If most services were already calling, what would be the point of building it? I've commented it out for now: if the source really does say that you can consider revealing it - but I really do not believe that it is true. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... I'm not sure what prompted me to write that, since looking at the source I gave it really isn't stated at all. The only sentence in it that discusses coach services at the time (1983) is in the section about the then-new bus station and says this:

"On the other side of the large island platform are 19 end-on stops for out-of-town services, including those of United Counties to outlying places such as Aylesbury, Oxford, Bedford, Buckingham etc, Wesley's service to Northampton, the joint services with Green Line and Tourmaster (formerly United Counties) to London, plus those of National Express, such as Milton Keynes-Sheffield, Cheltenham-Norwich, Birmingham-Portsmouth, Holyhead-Southend etc."

Nothing about bypassing services, or what proportion served CMK. So either I tried to read way too much into that sentence, or I got my info from another source and cited the wrong one by mistake, or I don't know what. But you're absolutely right, it shouldn't be there, so removal is fine with me. We might be able to use that sentence to expand other parts of the article though - Wesley's and Green Line/Tourmaster aren't mentioned yet. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Kassam Stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First ever Reading Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first ever Reading Wiki Meetup which will take place at Copa, 76-78 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3BJ on Sunday 23 September 2012 from 1.00 pm.

I hope as many people as possible will be able to attend so that we can make this a regular event. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Berkshire related topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sounds interesting, I might see if I can make that. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go on, you know you want to! I've signed up. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed! Thing is I'll be back at uni by then, although Southampton isn't too much further away than Maidenhead... OK, I'll sign, but call it "probably". Alzarian16 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. When you recently edited The Hobbit (public house), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Denham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Services of Lothian Buses

The article Services of Lothian Buses has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Charles (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Charles (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Services of Wilts & Dorset for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Services of Wilts & Dorset is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Services of Wilts & Dorset until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Charles (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Nomination of Stagecoach X5 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stagecoach X5 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stagecoach X5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SK2242 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Courtney Buses for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Courtney Buses is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Buses until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SK2242 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]