User talk:Alzarian16: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:28, 23 August 2011 editGiantSnowman (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators601,149 edits →List of Bohemian F.C. players: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:42, 23 August 2011 edit undoAlzarian16 (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,798 edits →List of Bohemian F.C. players: Reply/suggestionNext edit →
Line 390:		Line 390:

	At the time, I was under the belief that the list would follow a similar format to ]; 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. ]] 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)		At the time, I was under the belief that the list would follow a similar format to ]; 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. ]] 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
			: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 ( 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 ] still occupying places in the extremely large ], 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? ] (]) 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:42, 23 August 2011

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

Archives:

Replica Titanic article

Thank you for keeping the Replica Titanic article. Is there a way to make the article RMS Olympic III better? Greetings, Peekarica (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (It could still be deleted if the community at large decides it should be by the way.)

RMS Olympic III is a little more difficult to justify. The relevant guideline is WP:GNG - basically, it needs to have been the subject of at least two reliable sources independent of the topic. Of the three in the article, two seem to be connected to the topic and the third might not be considered reliable under WP:RS, so they wouldn't be enough. Googling various different search terms doesn't seeem to give very much either. So if you can find a few decent sources, it has a chance, but otherwise it should probably be deleted. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Tillingbourne Bus Company/GA1

A GA review has started on Tillingbourne Bus Company. The article is in the early stages of being created, and there are gaps in detail and information, and the prose does not yet flow. However, the review is on hold for seven days to see if contributors are able to further develop the article to meet GA criteria. SilkTork * 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll see what I can do. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Ooh, neat. Thanks, appreciate it. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

	The Mistagged BLP Cleanup Barnstar
	This barnstar does not cite any references or sources. For your work with mistagged BLPs, thank you! The list is now empty with your help. Gigs (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Great design by the way! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday :)

Hi Stephen/Alzarian. I just came to wish you Happy Birthday, Merry Christmas and Good New Year. May all your wishes come true :) Antonín Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone's being so nice to me lately, it makes me think I must be doing something wrong :) Seriously, thank you! I'll have to think of some wishes now... Alzarian16 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

skyline 199 move

i have now moved all content from this page and the other derbyshire bus routes to a page called Important bus routes in Derbyshire, so they can be found there in a list instead of having seperate articles.RCSprinter123 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup

Please consider signing up for the 2011 WikiCup; WP:WikiCup/2011 signups. Best to just sign up before January 1st, then drop out if it is not to your liking, because there are no late sign-ups allowed. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wonder how I've managed not to notice that before... go on then. Don't expect anything spectacular though. Thanks for the note! Alzarian16 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dorset Sprinter

The article Dorset Sprinter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a non-notable bus operator referenced with only local sources. Does not pass WP:COMPANY.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages 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. Scottdrink (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As you will probably have noticed, I have removed the PROD. Aside the from editor who tagged the article only having a handful of edits, I think we can address the concerns anyway, as non-local sources should be available (Buses mag etc), and they're notable for their contribution to the ongoing Ringwood - Southampton service saga, which of course they've withdrawn from now (the last day was yesterday!). Also, they've gone in front of the traffic commissioner, so I think there's enough. Arriva436 16:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!

Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done

This user helped promote Tillingbourne Bus Company to good article status.

SilkTork * 14:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Alzarian16 (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dorset Sprinter for deletion

The article Dorset Sprinter is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dorset Sprinter 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. Scottdrink (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's gone. Frankly I couldn't be bothered to argue because it was doomed to fail. There was no chance they'd let us add more sources now. If we do eventually get more sources then do you think we could recreated? I've moved the content to User:Arriva436/Sandbox3 just in case. Unfortunately the possible sources on the talk page have been deleted as the closing admin didn't think we might want them which was nice... Arriva436 19:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, lack of independent sources was the main concern, so one or two new ones could do enough, or at the very least avoid falling under WP:G4. I'm not entirely convinced by that AfD close, since every single one of the keep !votes - even the IP - actually mentioned a relevant guideline, but my experience at Deletion Review suggests it would never be overturned. More sources for a possible recreation some time in the future looks like the way to go. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Cambridge

Hi there, I'm still completing it and going to try to make it better than the Cambridgeshire one. I was taking a break for a while, because I have been foing several pages of this type. If you want, I'll try and speed up making it. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, I just finished the List of bus routes in Cambridge. I am planning on making a Peterborough one too, to possibly replace the, as you mentioned horribly written, Cambridgeshire one.

Mmm, not bad. It's strange how there seems to be no clear consensus on what size of area to cover in a route list - most cover entire counties, but some individual towns and cities have them as well, and at the other extreme we have List of bus routes in Scotland... Alzarian16 (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at some of the route lists. I think counties are best, as they are all roughly the same size, and they fit together well. Some lists, like List of bus routes in Surrey, are excellent. Arriva436 16:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, yes, but what about extremely large or small counties? List of bus routes in Rutland would be an interesting one. City-specific lists have survived AfD before. Then there's the tricky case where counties have been split up. I'd quite like to get rid of List of bus routes in Slough, but it's technically a county in its own right, even though a List of bus routes in Berkshire would be more useful. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, apparently we use ceremonial counties, so a List of bus routes in Berkshire would be the right approach. We should probably move List of bus routes in Slough there and expand it up to cover the whole county. Anyone fancy helping me with that? Alzarian16 (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bucks Free Press

Hello there, reports in the Bucks Free Press are often biased and incorrect in my opinion. Check the number of times they have to print apologies for printing the wrong information. This is why I edited it. I have also slightly altered the description of the company as the number of routes were wrong and it was not described as an independent company.

Hiya. This probably would have been better placed on my talk page, but since we're here we may as well carry on. You might well be right about the Bucks Free Press. Trouble is, they're about the only source other than industry-specific magazines that's really talked about Carousel in any detail. If we took out all the content based on what they say - and bear in mind that every other piece they've written about the compant is largely positive - the article would be very short, and might even be considered for deletion as not notable enough. The guide we use for deciding if a source is reliable is Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, which the paper would appear to meet for the most part. What we really want is another reliiable source to say that they were wrong... if you can find one, let me know!

The changes to the description were good. It's strange that the company's website doesn't list all the routes they operate, which I suppose is why the number was wrong. But your version works better anyway, so we'll stick with that. Happy editing! Alzarian16 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

UKRail

Thanks for fixing that. Whoops! Simply south...... 20:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No trouble. Amazing what one change to a symbol can do... Alzarian16 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Black Rock Ranger

Congrats on providing probably the only useful comment there. Tell me - is there any chance we can clone you and slowly replace all the AfD commenting people with little Pod Alazarians? It would make my job a lot easier. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm always open to reasonable offers, although at about three AfD edits per day it would take 30 of me to cover everything. As far as I know there's no policy against it - no mention of clones in WP:SOCK, and WP:CLONE points somewhere different. Probably best to wait till mistfall though... Alzarian16 (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Silver Star Holidays

On 5 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Silver Star Holidays, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the November 2010 sale by Silver Star Holidays of its local bus routes around Caernarfon ended nearly ninety years of bus service operation by the company? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rcsprinter123

There is a thread at WP:ANI concerning you. Nev1 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note. I'll add a comment as soon as I think of something useful to say. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've worked out where the problem is... look at his userpage, particularly the age box. AD 13:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that might explain it. Strange though - his style of communicating didn't suggest someone that young. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Misplaced Pages; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not

Well, you're right. It just popped into my head, actually. Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ordsall Chord for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ordsall Chord is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ordsall Chord 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.

Arriva Southern Counties

Ah good, you're back. As you might have noticed, someone has moved Arriva Southern Counties to Arriva South East and made a number of other changes. This is because Arriva have merged the "Shires & Essex" and "Southern Counties" sections of their website into a new "South East" region, apparently to make it less confusing (except now I'm getting loads of irrelevant details about the St Albans service changes and the M1 closure...!)

Anyway, I don't think the actual company subsidiaries have been merged, so the article shouldn't have been moved IMO. Additionally, Arriva Shires & Essex has been left alone. I was wondering how to go about rectifying this...? Arriva436 14:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. What we've ended up with is an article covering half the information it claims to and the rest of the information somewhere completely different, with three times the number of navboxes it needs. (And, as an aside, it makes the redirect from Arriva Kent & Sussex look even stranger.) At present we have no evidence that any legal entities or trading names are changing, so the change seems to have little justification. A one-sentence mention in each article that the websites were merged should suffice. I would suggest having a word with Jac16668, who performed the move (and a history merge) as a result of someone else's cut and paste move. If that fails, a move request on the talk page might be helpful.

Perhaps this would all have been avoided if London Country and Maidstone & District had been left as single companies in 1986. Breaking them up looks like a waste of time now... Alzarian16 (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. I've had a look and I think Jac16888 is just an admin trying to help Davey. Before asking him to move it back, I have messaged Davey to ask their opinion of the matter. Hopefully they'll understand because I do think the companies are still separate, certainly no legal lettering has changed etc. We'll see what they say, then hopefully get Jac16888 to move it back. If not, then I'll start a discussion on the talk page. Arriva436 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The other thing is, Davey has uploaded a non-free image of one of the B7TLs in the original 700/701 route branding, with a fair use rationale. You don't have an image yourself per chance do you, so we can swap the non-free image one with the freely licenced one? Arriva436 13:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ye-es, but it's a rather poor one - a nearside on a corner in Bluewater the same day I took this. The original print looks OK, but it scans really badly. The branding's also slightly different (three orange diamonds with numbers in where Expressline is on the other version). I'll upload it anyway if we can't find anything else. Sadly the one Davey uploaded falls one symbol short of being available for use on Commons, and searching for "Arriva B7TL" within Commons-licensed images only gives stuff from Merseyside and London. Is anyone else active in the area? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole page move problem is solved now which is good. I've only got photos of the newest version of the branding done in 2009/2010, which I'll get round to uploading (eventually!) in due course. I still haven't found anything older yet, and I don't know of anyone active in the area (besides Davey). I can't really ask any Wikipedians there either as they'll only be able to get recent photos (I can't imagine any will happen to have old photos). The only Medway Towns photos so far are a bunch of the B7TLs I came across in Weybridge of all places!! Commons:Category:Arriva Medway Towns. But these aren't don't really show what they usually get up to. So maybe you should upload your photo!! Arriva436 11:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, here goes: File:AMT GN04UEM.jpg (saved under an inaccurate name because I hit upload by accident, but I've tagged it for renaming). Colour wrong, sun and shadow problems, blurred so neither registration nor fleet number is readable... but usable if we really need it. By the way, did you forget about this image of a Medway Towns bus actually working for them? It might be a better choice - certainly sharper and the colour looks good, although admittedly unusual in character. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh excellent. I really don't think it's that bad, look at the positives, aside from the shadow the sun's in the right place, the angle is really good, you can see the route branding well, the LEDs came out and I've got a photo of 6443 which will be good for comparison! (Interestingly it now carries Medway Mainline branding rather than the Expressline 700/701 Bluewater routes branding.) I don't think it's blurred either, just the sunlight has overwhelmed the details. Thanks for uploading it, I like it anyway and it's really good to have a photo from back then rather than just recent ones.

I uploaded the Enviro pic after the reply above. I was checking Geograph for Volvo pictures, and came across that as the only decent, recent bus photo. I'm really pleased I did though as it's 4045 which moved to Guildford just two weeks ago (Arriva taking on work Countryliner had to give up conveniently timed with Gillingham's service cuts!) and it is good to have a photo of it in its home area. Also, do you think there is scope to have seperate articles for the various divisions, like Arriva Guildford & West Surrey? It would only be Kent & Sussex and Medway Towns that need new articles, though Kent Thameside could do with a bit of expanding. Arriva436 08:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I was being a bit harsh. If so, it's mostly because the print looked much better. I might have a go at scanning off the negative using my dad's new high-powered thing if he lets me. I could also upload more recent better images of Chatham-area stuff (including some of the large numbers of Citybuses they still run) if these would help.

I would like to see separate articles for the remaining divisions in the future, in particular Kent & Sussex (the largest division and well covered by sources), subject to them each having enough references to justify it. There are probably more important gaps (McGill's Bus Services, the largest independent in Scotland, and Express Motors, an important large operator in North Wales, spring to mind) that should be filled first though. If might be an idea to improve the existing ones up to the level that Arriva Southend has got to before we create any more, or perhaps this should come later. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, I completely forgot to reply to this. Sorry but I'm so busy at the moment I only really have time to make fleeting visits! New Chatham stuff would be good, I have been (in April 2010) and will eventually get round to uploading the photos hopefully, but I only got one or two of the Citybuses. I didn't really get much non-Arriva either, and the ex-Fastrack B7RLEs escaped the lens despite me seeing them! Oh yes, and anything of 4044/5 would be good ;)

OK, I'll try and do something about the Southern Counties subdivisions in the future. The operators you give are very good ones to have articles about I think. I have been expanding the article on Countryliner but haven't got time to finish the recent history yet. Then I've got the expand the early history, that will prove difficult I think! Arriva436 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Armbrust has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

360 (rapper)

G'day,

You removed the tag for deletion from this article saying that it had references, which is true. The problem is the reliability of those references. The BLPPROD template probably needs some wording cleaned up (because the first sentence, as you say, says that there's no references... when... there... are...), but:

(All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source.)

...

Once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag. Please do not remove this tag unless the article has at least one such source.

(emph. as is)

I did mention my concerns in my edit summary. Briefly, they are reliable sources, significant coverage, promotion and self published sources.

So, yeah. The problem remains in regards to the referencing. If you can help, fantastic, but I don't think that notability can be satisfied here. I've undone your removal of the tag until reliable sources can be found in accordance with WP:BLP-PROD#Objecting. Cheers. -danjel (talk to me) 17:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why I dislike that particular process. I would interpret this as significant, not promotional and not self-published, and on the face of it reliable, but it's a matter of interpretation. If I'm reading the policy page correctly, my removal of the tag might well have been wrong, but your insertion of it was also wrong (WP:BLP-PROD#Nominating). We really need to clear up the ambiguity some time, but consensus is never quite there. Fortunately this particular issue seems to have been sorted by the page's creator adding some genuinely reliable sources, although I wouldn't oppose an AfD on notability grounds. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the nomination process suggests that I was in the right here. I think that an interview conducted on "social media" certainly doesn't count as reliable. But whatever.

You're right that the BLP-PROD process needs to be reworked. I've suggested rewording that part of the tag that you and I had issues with (no references vs. no good references), and someone has raised the issue before. I'll wait a couple of days to see if anyone else chimes in.

I'm not interested enough to AfD it. I'm not a good enough judge on notability being that I have little interest (I only came across the article because it was added to a school article, and schools always have "notable" alumni added to them that need to be followed up a little). There's a reliable source and seems OK, so I'm fine. If you want to, you're welcome. Until then, see you around. -danjel (talk to me) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Steamin' and Dreamin'

Hello! Following its recent nomination in MfD, I reviewed the case of this page, which you previously discussed in AfDs, and found a comment from you: "I want to see this kept as I believe the coverage justifies its inclusion, but without eveidence of the sources other keep votes will be difficult to come by". As you may remember I had trouble locating scans of the sources, but managed to do so a number of months later, even though I never did get around to re-opening the case. The new MfD has reminded me of this and I just thought you might like to weigh in on whether I should even bother making a case for it anymore. I'm not particularly motivated either way myself. Thanks! Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 11:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I'd almost forgotten about this. I'll comment there; thanks for the note. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Junction on ECML

Use this:

Template:BS-header Template:BS-table Template:BS5 Template:BS5 Template:BS5

It's a bit longer that the one you're using but width is more important IMO particularly in a long article like ECML. It's BS5 and should cut and paste into your diagram, just ask if you have a problem. Try not to use the "one cell" icon, they are too small to see without a magnifying glass. Britmax (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you put this on the wrong talk page... you want User talk:Mjroots methinks (one comment above mine on the project talk page). Alzarian16 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try there. Shouldn't look up dense lines of print just after doing these things. Britmax (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cambusbarron

On 24 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cambusbarron, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the then-closed Hayford Mill in Cambusbarron, Scotland, now a Category A listed building, was used during World War I as a training base by the King's Own Scottish Borderers? 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) 08:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 23:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alzarian! Nolelover 04:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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).

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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 ? Pass a Method talk 14:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

YGM

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)

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)

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

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)

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

List of Bohemian F.C. players

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)

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)