Talk:Mumbai Central–Hisar Duronto Express

Unreasonable edits

A certain user has been adding information which is in no way adding but is rather removing the encyclopedic value of the article. In addition by using a large number of edits,it seems that the user is attempting to prevent reversion of their edits as it may cause other editors to go over 3RR.

In this case,i am undoing the edits for the following reasons :

1. Information on traction from its introduction until almost a year is being removed with good reason (March 2011 - March 2012). Historic traction information does form an important part of a trains article as in the case of The Grand Trunk Express, Tamil Nadu Express, Andhra Pradesh Express to name a few.

2. There is no information to suggest that the Duronto Express is a version of Rajdhani Express.

3. The information on which train is overtaken during the journey is wholly irrelevant & adds no value to the article.

4. The number of technical halts is already mentioned.

5. It is better that if available( as is in this case),the type of diesel engine & its shed is mentioned rather than a vague reference to EMD which needs to be better explained as to what it stands for.

6. There were mistakes in the train number at places.

7. The features of the Duronto Express are already explained in detail on its own page. There is hardly any point in duplicating a large amount of information which is already present with the appropriate links.

8. A blurred image of the interior does not seem to be needed on the article.

I believe that i have explained my actions in sufficient detail. The other editor is invited to put his comments on the talk page so that his views can be known & the points that have been raised by me can be answered.

Unreasonable edits by user Suerfast1111

User Suerfast1111 is trying to impose old information and unnecessary changes on Wikipedia page that belongs to Jaipur Duronto. I have certain points on which i propose to revert those changes that were made by this user :-

(1) As a regular traveler of this train i currently have the Latest information and media which i would like to add on this page to enhance it's Encyclopedic value.

(2) The user Superfast1111 deleted one of my uploaded picture which shows the inside view of LHB Coaches of Jaipur Duronto Express and top of the promoting one of his uploaded picture which is very dark and doesn't add any value. Posting such kind of pictures on Wikipedia degrades the standard of not only the page but site also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:12239_Jaipur_Duronto_Express.jpg

(3) The user Superfast1111 has no knowledge of table design. Compared to my version and tables that are available on other Train's page; this table lacks quality. Although i feel that my table doesn't have information about distance which i would like to add later. Here are two different pages :-

My Table https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaipur_Duronto_Express&oldid=573654719

superfast1111's table :- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaipur_Duronto_Express&oldid=573653346

(4) The user Superfast1111 has removed the Technical Stop section in my edited version. If you compare my page vs his page you would see that i have provided more relevant information. As the train doesn't have equal technical stops at up and down direction so I have clearly mentioned the most appropriate information in a better looking manner. This would only increase the knowledge about the people who would visit this page.

(5) As far as superfast1111's 5th point is concerned in the talk page; the author here is absolutely wrong. Because :-

a. The Train now runs daily with WAP5 Locomotive. b. The Train runs with EMD WDP4 between Jaipur and Sawai Madhopur. The "EMD" word is already pointing to a link of another Wikipedia page. I agree to add the name of shed.

(6) User superfast1111 should not have any objection on trivia which i had presented in the page. It might be possible that for this user that kind of information seems unnecessary and irrelevant but that might not be the case of other people. That is what trivia means. As i have traveled many times by this train; the information provided about overtake is totally true. Infact Mumbai Delhi Duronto which shares the same time in Down direction also overtakes Golden Temple Mail.

(7) Those people who directly hop into Jaipur Duronto page; might not keeping information about the Duronto Series of Trains hence it is always important to give brief information about the Duronto Series.

(8) I believe that like other Wikipedia pages; This wikipedia page also stand on quality of Information which should be latest and the media which enhances the informative value of this page. Superfast1111 is posting old information; images that are not cleared and table which is a skeleton and not looks like lots of need to be done.

Hence i would request the admins to revert the page with my version. I am also planning to add more information and pictures about the Train which would enhance the quality of this page which is currently lacking. Thanks.

(Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

My response to the above comments

• The frequency of travel is wholly irrelevant to the issue here.

• Considering the number of times the other author has received notifications for improper copyright status, which degrades the quality of Wikipedia more than anything he should refrain from accusing others.

• The ‘’’ugly table’’’ that has been referred to here is presently in use on these articles, Bhubaneswar Duronto Express, Secunderabad Mumbai Duronto Express, Ernakulam-Lokmanya Tilak Duronto, Howrah Mumbai CST Duronto Express, Ernakulam-H.Nizamudin Duronto, Secunderabad Hazrat Nizamuddin Duronto Express, Nagpur Duronto express, Chennai Madurai AC Duronto Express, Kolkata Shalimar – Patna Duronto Express, Bhopal Shatabdi Express, Lucknow Swarna Shatabdi Express, Kanpur New Delhi Shatabdi Express. There could be more but presently I am not concerned to look any further.

• The technical halts were already mentioned on the page.

• There is no denying on whether a WAP 4 or WAP 5 is used to haul the train. When I saw it, it was a WAP 4 but that issue is irrelevant here. What the issue is that when the train was introduced in 2011, Mumbai region still had DC traction thus dual traction loco’s were used. Why is this information considered not relevant is beyond me? I have listed some of the trains which have such information. Mumbai Rajdhani Express for example has traction information dating back to when it was introduced in 1972.

• EMD can mean any of 18 articles on Wikipedia. Since the user has such a fondness for accuracy, stating a particular type of engine should be accepted by him.

• I maintain which train overtakes which is wholly irrelevant. But if the user can provide reference to any article presently on Wikipedia which has such a section, it can be discussed further.

• If a person can visit Jaipur Duronto Express then certainly a link to the entire type series can also be visited. If I were to follow his logic then every duronto article will be flooded. A link provides the visitor with the option incase they are interested. Let us not dump information on visitors but give them the option.

• Old information does not necessarily mean that it is not relevant. Is Mr. Mishra willing to visit all the pages whose references I have provided to undo all the historic data related to traction?

• Of course if Mr. Mishra has some spectacularly new information with credible sources, he is more than welcome to add it. I for example authored Jaipur Superfast Express & it does not look anything like what it was when I started it but what I see is that I started something & others pooled in their resources to work on it. So that is a good feeling.

• It would be nice if Mr.Mishra works on his spelling & grammar. It will help this move along. For example : He has referred to both the up & down travel of Jaipur Duronto as 12240.

And my user name is superfast1111 not Suerfast1111. Superfast1111 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

SUPERFAST1111 is IMPOSING IDEAS ON OTHERS

(1) First of all how let's talk about "Ugly Table". Superfast1111 says that his table is same like other tables. He has given the links too. This is the most ridiculous thing. He even didn't care to see that his table doesn't match with any of the tables shown there. This is the sign of how desperate a person can be to impose his ideas on other people. His contribution towards Wikipedia is to delete other people's contribution and adding his own stuff. He is still unable to get the difference between the table he made and the tables that are present in almost every train's page including the links he has shown.

(2) I am unable to understand that why superfast1111 is having problem to understand that the train 12240 is not having technical halt at Kota? I can prove it as unlike him ; i am a regular traveler of this train. Technical halts were NOT mentioned correctly. But as seen from his past contribution to other pages i don't have any hope that he would understand the difference between 3 tech stops and 4 tech stops.

(3) I do NOT have any problem with his information on Traction. I agree to include DC to AC conversion history but now he should mention that Vadodara WAP5 and WDP4 is a regular link.

(4) I agree to link the reference of WDP4 from wikipedia :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_GT46PAC

(5) If superfast1111 is having a personal problem with overtake then i agree to remove it although due to some of his personal grudge or intelligence he doesn't want to include it as trivia.

As you can see i agree on almost all the points but i can never be agree on Table and Technical Halt section. I also think that the picture posted by him is not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Although i am confident that that user would never agree on a any points as his history suggests yet i have to opt a procedure to sort it out because i don't see it personally and it is always good to accept people's feedback and contribution rather than stopping them and imposing your own thing.

I welcome him to make this page better by working together. I would be happy to do so. But let's see his reaction which is very predictable. (Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

DURONTO is Rajdhani Type

Duronto IS a Rajdhani Type train. Don't believe it ? Open IRCTC Page->Select a Jaipur Duronto Train from BCT to JP say on 20 Oct. -> Now click Fare Summery. -> Read Train Type. It's Rajdhani Type of Train. Do you need screenshot ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sranjanm2002 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC) (Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

My reply to points 4 & 5

• It is good to see that you managed to get my name spelt correctly.

• The format is similar & in some cases the same as the links I have given. I am not desperate to impose my ideas but if I am troubled by poor quality information then I will take measures that I deem necessary to keep article as they are best suited. Every author of an article likes to create articles in his own way but as Mr. Mishra has yet to author his 1st article, I will cut him some slack on his utter lack of knowledge there. You can visit your favourite Jaipur Superfast Express, Mumbai Rajdhani Express, August Kranti Rajdhani Express also to see the format of the table there. Indian Railways timetable as shown on their website mentions 8 items .i.e. Sr No of stop, Station Code, Route number, Arrival & Dep time, Halt in minutes, Distance from source station & day (as in number of days based on 24 hr clock) on which the timetable has largely been based on.

• It is of glorious irrelevance how many times you have traveled by the train so stop harping on it. You have made a claim that your travel experience is more than mine on Jaipur Duronto. Here’s a simple question for you: how do you intend to prove how many times I have traveled by Jaipur Duronto? You need to add my travel schedule in order for your experience claim to have any merit otherwise it is just a sign of your desperation.

• All the technical halts are mentioned on the article but if you wish to specifically mention information on Kota, I am agreeable to that.

• Indian railways does have the option to put a WAP 4 & WDM 3A to haul the train but I can agree to include WDP 4 engines may also be allocated to the train.

• My opposition to the overtake information is based on value addition to the article. It is however hilarious that someone who has trouble understanding simple English & who repeatedly makes basic & simple spelling mistakes wishes to judge anyone else’s intelligence. That statement did give me quite a laugh.

• If images were to be judged the way you are doing now then a lot of what you have uploaded on Jaipur Superfast Express will go straight in the dustbin so let’s leave that part alone.

• Nice of you to visit irctc’s page but once again you missed the simplest of points. The fare structure is based on Rajdhani. Otherwise you are welcome to visit the article pages of rajdhani & duronto respectively and make your claim there. That should allow a large audience to be introduced to your pearls of wisdom.

• You had removed the sentence of coach composition being at the discretion of Indian railways. Now what is wrong with that statement? Indian Railways routinely adds/removed coaches as per the demand. For example, Mumbai Rajdhani Express & August Kranti Rajdhani Express routinely have between 17 & 21 coaches.

• Given your counter points, I believe that the only point of dispute remains the format of the timetable. As both formats of what you propose & what I have done remain in extensive use across various articles, as the author of the article I would like to retain it in its current format. If you chose to disagree on it then we can go in for 3rd opinion or dispute resolution.

• So only one answer is expected from you: You do not agree with what I propose & want to move for dispute resolution or you accept what I have proposed thus ending any further debates on the issue. Looking forward to your reply. Superfast1111 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments about the September 2013 dispute

Please see User_talk:Superfast1111#The_Jaipur_Duronto_Express_.E2.80.8E_dispute

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I Do Not Agree

(1) First of all Superfast1111 , please be polite; if you think by giving threats and insulting people you would be successful to force your work on Wikipedia and other people then you are wrong. By checking your past talks with other people it is cleared that you never agree on anything just because you think that if you have made a page on Wikipedia then you think you own it. As far as your name is concerned; i thought superfast1111 is your user name; never thought it's "your name". I am NOT making any spelling mistakes because i use American Spellings which can be different from your British English.

(2) I do NOT agree with the shady picture that you have used. As far as my pictures on Jaipur Superfast Express are concerned; just show them to your friends and compare them with yours. Clearly you do not have a sense of photography that's why a dark black picture where only few things are noticeable feels an award winning material for you. Your picture clearly does NOT have EV value. EV means Encylopedic Value. Do you have so much less time and resources that you can't have another and better one ? Forget another one you didn't even care to edit it !!

(3) I do NOT agree with your table design. You are still and now never be able to understand the difference between the design of your table and tables on all other pages. I am talking about design.

(4) I do NOT have any problem with Coach Composition.

(5) I do NOT agree with the Loco you are using. The Train now runs regularly with WAP5 and WDP4. Infact today it came to Mumbai Central with Vadodara WAP 5 30065.

(6) I do NOT agree with the Technical stops in your article. Remember Spelling Mistakes can be treated but giving the bogus material to the world is not a good thing my friend that you are doing.

I agree that you would always disagree hence i will write my own article on the same train and after that let the admins decide. Because i travel regularly so i have the current information with lots of pictures and videos. Further i am always in touch with the Railway Fans. So i am quite updated than you but at the same time I do NOT have any problem with the historical data.

I would like to Thank Anna Frodesiak for the understanding and the patience. Please be here.

(Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

Thank you Satya Ranjan Mishra. :) I've just reverted the last edit by Superfast1111 because consensus wasn't reached. Please continue to work toward resolution. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Anna, your reversion is accepted. Apologize for my error.

For Sranjanm2002,

Point 1 - It is you who is the threatening party here. Perhaps now you can understand how someone else feels when you threaten them. By checking your past,it is clear you have yet to author even one article. The first note you see when you create any article on wikipedia, it is very clearly mentioned that anyone can edit an article subject to terms & conditions. Don't try to blame British & American words for your errors.

Point 2 - If you have a better picture then by all means add it. Take a daytime shot of the same & feel free to replace mine. I have uploaded more than 570 images & as with all works, some are liked, some have no opinion, some have been disliked. Its part of the game. Insulting me by questioning the resources i can muster is down right wrong. But yes, i am also quite busy travelling by a lot of trains rather than harping on about one.

Point 3 - The point of giving you article for references was that what you propose & what i have used about the time table design, both are in extensive use depending upon who the editor is. If i like the design i used & you don't and with you trying to ram your design down my throat, i can say that you are pushing your designs & trying to prevent me from my freedom of expression.

Point 4 - Guess we can agree on something.

Point 5 - Are you trying to say that a WAP 4 has never been used on this train. The way i see it, we are really arguing over nothing. WAP 5 may according to you be the more frequent loco for this train but that does not exclude the possibility that a WAP 4 may also be used. Its the same thing with the diesel traction. Lets keep both links then we can both be happy.

Point 6 - Accusing me of using bogus material is a very serious allegation & may constitute personal attack. You better hope you have hard evidence rather than your opinion to back it up.

Point 6A - It very much sounds like you are threatening me by warning me about your friends. You may want to be careful what you say here.

Superfast1111 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Manners

• Superfast1111: "threatening", "warning", "friends"? Please reread point 6. I don't see anything like what you're talking about.

• Satya Ranjan Mishra: "Clearly you do not have a sense of photography..." is a personal attack.

Please, both of you, tone down the hostility. You want this resolved right? Please stop delivering and reacting to hostility. Just get down to business. No insults. Use polite terms. No bold and no all-capital letters if you would be so kind.

Now, #4 is resolved, right? Can we scratch that off the list? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Anna i was referring to his allegation of bogus information in point 6. That is what i would say is also a very serious personal attack. Does he have any hard evidence of it?

as for the 2nd point, i am referring to the part just below point 6, he seems to be warning me that he is in touch with lots of others (railway fans - as he claims). Besides not being relevant to the issue in question here, it would seem like he is threatening to gang up on me with those who he claims to be on touch with.

Another thing i cannot understand why does he keep harping on how much he travels or what i have done in the past. Why is that relevant to the situation at hand?

Point 4 can be removed from the disputed points.

Lets get some wikitrains editors in here. This thing is clearly getting out of hand.

Superfast1111 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A way forward

Okay. It looks like you can't agree. What I will do is beg an uninvolved, neutral editor at wikiproject trains to fix up the article. Then we can call that the last stable version. Then, if one of you wants to make a change, do it, but make it a single, small change, not a whole rewrite. If the other reverts, then follow the WP:BRD cycle. How does that sound? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I just posted here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Dispute at Jaipur Duronto Express

Give it a day or two. Hopefully one or more editors will create a stable version. Then you can have at it one point at a time. Is this okay with both of you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am an editor who has created lots of articles about European express trains. I have also created articles about Indian steam locomotives, and have contributed to a number of other articles about Indian rail topics. At Anna Frodesiak's request, I will have a close look at this article over the next few days, and then see what I can do about helping to create a stable version of it. Regards, Bahnfrend (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You are a total angel. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Conflicts? It's not worth it...

Hi Anna, I happened to keep a watch on the User: Superfast1111 for a long time and hence noticed this ugly conflict. I fall under none of the categories you require, so I refrain from editing and I'll just list down what I feel about this article.

1. 1:This article does not cite any reference, and hence I suggest it should be degraded to stub class unless remedied.
2. 2:Info box: Seating arrangements “no” and sleeping arrangements “yes”? Kidding me?
3. 3:Average speed: 72.82? I believe the editor has simply divided the distance by time, which ‘’does’’ not give you average speed, keeping in mind the halting time. Correct me if I am wrong.
4. 4:I don’t agree with a user that the table is ugly. However, I suggest a template shall be created for train schedules. Shall we request the necessary people?
5. 5:Personally, I wouldn’t want to see File:12239 Jaipur Duronto Express.jpg if I buy an encyclopedia.

And regarding conflicts, I suggest editors to quote or link the Wiki rule in everything you do for some time. This will mutually help to understand the rules as well. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.--Challengethelimits (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your candor about your interaction with Superfast1111 is appreciated. Also, your voluntarily refraining from editing is appreciated. Let's allow the neutral party to create a stable version and work from there. All of this is voluntary, by the way. I have no right to tell anyone what to do. I'm just looking for the best way forward for everyone. :) Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Hi CTL, good to hear from you the present circumstances not withstanding. I have added point numbers to your remarks for easier answering reference.

1. Perhaps the other editor who is continuously blowing his own horn on his great travels by the train can add some.

2. When i listed no on the seating arrangements, i meant no chair car or 2nd class seating. Was i wrong in saying so?

3. Yes that is how i have calculated speed, but i have specified that it includes halts. It would be very hard task if i were to write an article of 13307/08 Udyan Abha Toofan Express & calculating stoppage timings across more then a hundred halts. Would you agree on that?

4. I have used an existing template on wikipedia for the time table that i have created. We can surely look into the possibility of a standard template. I would like to submit mine as an entry.

5. Maybe a better quality day time image can replace it. No issues on that. We already have a volunteer who has lots of images to add.

During all our interactions,(according to me), we have agreed on things & agreed to disagree on things. Have i done anything wrong here?

Superfast1111 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

---

MY POINTS OF DISPUTE

(1) superfast1111 says that his table is on par with the page of other trains. OK...Let's go to Mumbai Rajdhani Express page and see the Table there in Time Table section. Does this table looks like exactly the one present in Jaipur Duronto Expresspage ? NO. I am here to improvise the quality of article. That table doesn't look nowhere neat near to this page.

I want that table to look exactly like one in Mumbai Rajdhani page. I hope almost everyone got my point except one.

(2) I have a objection on Technical halt. it's an encyclopedia not someone's blog page. It should be full of information. superfast1111 is trying to own all the rights just because he/ she has started this article.

(3) I just want some small changes not the whole rewrite and superfast1111 is not even ready to listen.

(4) As far as picture is concerned User:Challengethelimits has already said it.

(5) Photography skills are not equal to the number of pictures uploaded. Pictures uploaded in Wikimedia Commons should have an Encyclopedic Value.

(6) Superuser1111 has a personal problem with me by saying that i have traveled many times by this train. OK let me clear it....can you write an article on Middle East conflicts when you have not been there ? Why is it wrong to contact a person who travels almost every month or two by this train. I am so quite updated that i told the WAP5 loco number that came with this train to Mumbai Central last time. Even last Sunday i was at Mumbai Central station to see this train and i have pictures to prove it. I was saying this because i know that train number 12240 doesn't have technical halt at Kota Junction but superfast1111 is constantly denying to include this information. Infact i shot a video which is available on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwL4H092A34

Does he has something similar to offer ?

What kind of encyclopedic page are you trying to built where you want to censor information according to your choice ? wikipedia is not a Blog and definitely not your personal one. It's for the benefit of people.

(7) I am concerned about this article because i have information and ideas that i would like to contribute. Definitely i won't write anything on Acela Express or Bangalore Rajdhani Express simply because i've never been there. Although other user may have a confidence to write on those too but i contribute where i am pretty much confident and have things to share.

Kindly let me know if i can work on the Article. I want to work together as a team. Thanks y'all. Good Day.

(Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

---

My reply :

1. Nice to know you want to improvise the quality of article. I want to improve it, no wonder we are disagreeing. We want two very different things.

2. The technical halts have been listed. Once again, i am not owning any rights on wikipedia & am fed up of hearing the same ramble of a broken record. I had merely said that since (according to me & i was mistaken) we only have 1 point of dispute let my view prevail. It was an offer not my way or the highway. Cant blame me for your poor understanding.

3. I am willing to listen & had listed options but Sranjanm2002 does not want to seem to listen but seems hellbent on trying to impose his views on me, the article & wikipedia.

4. Agree with CTL. The only reason i removed 1 of Sranjanm2002's 2 images was because it was blurred & i mentioned that. Sranjanm2002 is welcome to add one of his many images.

5. If 2 people out of a million wikipedia viewers don't agree on my images, I am not really bothered.

6. The correct username is Superfast1111 not Superuser1111. Would you pls pay more attention to spellings & grammar considering you want to prove your superiority in article & image analysis.

Do you once again have your train numbers reversed. It is 12239 that has a halt at Kota Junction not 12240.

Just because WAP 5 was spotted by you & your buddy does not exclude the possibility that a WAP 4 or WDM 3A has never been used on the train. I had proposed to list both options but Sranjanm2002 does not want to seem to listen but seems hellbent on trying to impose his views.

I had agreed to your points : Marking of Kota Junction as a separate technical halt & Top Speed of 130 km/hr. You had accepted the traction information & the statement of coach composition being at the discretion of Indian Railways. I dont know why you are still going on about like a broken record.

7. Nice to know you care & i am truly interested in your images. In fact i have saved the 2 images of the 3 tier coach you had uploaded on Duronto Express in the early days. We can resolve this.

For example you wanted to copy Duronto information from its page & list it here while i wanted it to remain in its present state with a link to prevent an information overload. Its not that big a deal.

We can still work it out. Comment on factual information not on my history. And Anna had requested both to us to stop using both & highlighted options, try to listen to her at least.

Superfast1111 (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

AGREE TO WORK TOGETHER

(1) Writing wrong user name doesn't come under Grammar. You should understand that i want to include information. I may forget to write correct user name but unlike you i am still following Etiquette. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Refactoring#Refactoring_overview I certainly do not want to involve in Insulting people. You think that by insulting me you will be succeeded in discouraging me. You are insulting me continuously from the starting of the discussion. This is not a fair practice. You have been warned by Anna also.

(2) In my Last conversation i didn't mention that 12239 doesn't halt at Kota. That's what i wrote :- " was saying this because i know that train number 12240 doesn't have technical halt at Kota Junction" . Anyway; You agree to include it in your Separate Technical halt section so now i do not have any objection. This point is solved.

(3) Glad to know that you are interested in My images. I would be happy to contribute.

(4) So it seems that i now i have less objections one of which is the design of the table. Either you can work on it or let me do it. I want a table which should not look like a skeleton. Just like other tables it should look attractive like Yellow Color for heading. Hope you got my point. The information that you have provided in your table is appropriate but i just want to improve it's look and i hope you are also keen to make Jaipur Duronto's page Beautiful and Informative.

(5) As far as loco is concerned. I do not have any problem for WAP4 and WCAM2P locos. Last Sunday i talked to Loco Pilot of Jaipur Duronto and he said that from past 4 months this train is running with WAP 5 loco. Infact now every Duronto/ Shatabdi/ Rajdhani Train of WR is running with WAP5 loco. So "Previosuly it used to run with.....Currently it runs with.." would be a good addition.

(6) I am glad that you are now listening and would like to work together. It's a good start and i hope it will definitely benefit Wikipedia Users who would come to this page to get information.

Thanks. (Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

---

My response to the above

1. You have also been insulting me from the start. You have to remember what another user discospinster said & in any case people do make mistakes (we are all human) but if you keep making them again & again, it shows you in very poor light. And pls be careful when you tick minor edit.

2. 12239 halts at Kota or 12240 does'nt is the same thing. That was resolved anyway. Accepted.

3. Good to know.

4. There is nothing wrong with either versions. Both versions are in extensive use so can you let this point tilt in my favour?

5. Locos routinely get swapped around depending on availability, servicing needs etc. For example: Mumbai Rajdhani Express & August Kranti Rajdhani Express get a WAP 5 or WAP 7. Howrah Rajdhani has been hauled by a pair of WAP 1's, WAP 4 & WAP 5. So good you agreed on WAP 4 & WAP 5. Do i have your ok on the WDM 3A & WDP 4 also?

6. I told you we can work it out even though the article is presently in dispute resolution mode.

Take a look at the last version of the Jaipur duronto page before Anna reverted my edit. Is that version acceptable to you? If yes, then the time table will remain the only bone of contention & that can be easily sorted out.

Superfast1111 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Hi there. It looks like you may be able to sort out your difficulties without my assistance, so I'll wait another day or so before looking closely at this article. Regards, Bahnfrend (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As you wish, my friend. I see others working on it, so no worries at all.

All we're after here is for some uninvolved parties to make it into something representing "the community view" -- to get a bit of distance from the two versions they're arguing over. Then, they will be able (hopefully) to take that as a stable version without them seeing it as having content that "the other guy wants in there". :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Thanks Anna & Bahnfrend for your assistance & patience but i am still awaiting for a response from Sranjanm2002. So its still a wait & watch. Superfast1111 (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Hi Guys...got some important work...give me a day or two...will be back soon. (Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

No problem from my side. Superfast1111 (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Although most of the things on which i objected were included yet i believe that lot of things is still left to be done. Time Table is one of them and i think some touch up work would be pleasing to everyone visiting this page. Currently it's just like a skeleton. (Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC))

As i told you before, both formats of the time table you proposed & what i use are in extensive use across a host of pages so basically it is what an individual editor chooses to use. Even our favorite Jaipur Superfast Express uses the same format. Let me have this point on the timetable. Anything else you have is ofcourse welcome. Superfast1111 (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for being so patient and collaborative. I agree that the table looks very odd. I agree that using a table from a very conventional article as a model is a good idea. You can even paste a sample table here to work on. Again, thank you both. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit of a catch 22 situation here. Both of us are right in our own respective ways. Before I created the article I had actually visited several pages to study the different versions in use & I picked out what I liked best. My main displeasure with the version he proposes is that it removes information like distance & days. I had actually borrowed the format from either Secunderabad Mumbai Duronto Express, Secunderabad Hazrat Nizamuddin Duronto Express, Ernakulam Duronto or Kochi Duronto. Presently these 4 excluding what I have created/revamped use this version. This one is indeed a tough call.

But i do have a sort of a solution. There are some Duronto articles where there is no time table & which need some work. Perhaps Sranjanm2002 can create a format for those articles. Some of them are Chennai Coimbatore AC Duronto Express, Chennai Duronto, Visakhapatnam – Secunderabad Duronto Express, Chennai Madurai AC Duronto Express, Chennai–Thiruvananthapuram AC Duronto.

Superfast1111 (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

For a Time Table thing ; i strongly suggest that the format of Punjab Mail can be used. Here you can get Distance and Day. Just have a look :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_Mail

This would be the perfect thing to include. This is not a tough call either. You may borrowed it from some Duronto pages but that kind of Time Table is being used in all leading Train Pages including Mumbai Rajdhani, Bhopal Shatabdi. In Punjab Mail version; Distance and Day is also included. So your problem gets resolved automatically.

The page should look beautiful. Already we are having a dark image of Superfast1111; now including such kind of time table makes it more ugly. Infact i need a collective opinion on that image from admins/ moderators on whether to include that picture or not. On other note; on 18th i came from Jaipur to Mumbai from Jaipur Duronto and it was wonderful journey. I took lot of pics too.

(Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC))

Time Table format

I have re-formatted the time table, i believe that it should be acceptable now. The suggestion of Punjab Mail was a good idea. And pls stop using the word ugly. It is a massive irritant. Upload more of your beautiful images & stop harping like a broken record about the dark image. Add more bright one's instead.

Superfast1111 (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Five editors unanimously agree that timetables in general should not exist in these articles. I suggest suspending work and discussion on the matter for now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Traction information

• Another user and an I.P editor are claiming that a WAP 4 locomotive has never been used for the Jaipur Duronto Express. Below is the evidence that it has :

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Therefore they are requested to refrain from reverting the traction information relating to the WAP 4 locomotive. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• ==Force Feed of WRONG Information==

(1) As we all know that nothing is permanent is this changing world but look like user Superfast1111 has some kind of problem with that.

(2) I have enough evidences to show that the Train Jaipur Duronto now runs regular with WAP5 loco instead of WAP4 loco ; This fact is not digestible by him.

(3) This user is dominating this page like it's his own Facebook page or something thus force feeding the Wrong information.

(4) I suggest Superfast1111 either to come with latest proofs of Jaipur Duronto running with WAP4 or not to sabotage the Wikipedia page.

Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)sranjanm2002

• I have uploaded 5 different pieces of information, 3 images and 2 video's but it seems that Satya Ranjan Mishra is unable to see them. Once again, take a look at them before reverting me again. And earlier Satya Ranjan Mishra claimed that WAP 4 has never been used now he claims it is no longer used. Wish he would make up his mind. By the way, i do sincerely hope you know the meaning of the words sabotage & force feeding.Superfast1111 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I understand very well....now superfast1111 is trying to manipulating my sentence....anyway as history says he is just like that....FYI....Jaipur Duronto initially hauled by WAP4 later both loco were used but now only WAP5 is used....and where are your outdated pics and videos ?

Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)sranjanm2002

• Here they are where they have always have been had you been able to spot them. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

You are really starting to use big words. Manipulation, sabotage, force feeding, ego, facebook page... wow. You have just admitted what i have been saying that a WAP 4 locomotive has also hauled the train. And given that Indian Railways have the option to use it again if they so desire. You are agreeing with what i am saying yet you choose to revert me.

Mr. Mishra, should you still be unwilling to agree with me, it would be a good idea to go in for a WP:Third Opinion. I intend to list the case there. Superfast1111 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Jaipur Duronto Express and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

So, WAP4 has been used in the past, and now WAP5 is used. Both the current and the historical choice should be mentioned. Rather than the time-independent "WAP4 or WAP5" wording, which does somewhat mislead, it would be better to state explicitly that WAP4 is the past choice, and WAP5 the present choice. And do it with citations, please. It's rather ridiculous to edit war over an article that has no inline citations at all. It leaves a strong flavour of WP:OR. @Sranjanm2002: stop the personal attacks now. It sours the atmosphere for everyone here, and you risk getting blocked. -- Stfg (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess I should mention that photos on flickr and youtube videos (whether linked directly or through popscreen) are not reliable sources. --Stfg (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(1) First of all I NEVER said that Jaipur Duronto was never hauled by WAP4. I have been travelling by Train since it's launch so i know about it perfectly. There is much difference between "used to hauled by" and "now being used to" . First refers to a past event and second one is present, So to be very clear i never said that it never used WAP4.

(2) The Flickr pictures provided by Superfast1111 belongs to Year 2012 that is 2 YEARS OLD. The video provide by him is also 2 years old. I am not doing any personal attacks but clearly these evidences raise the question of authenticity on the materials provided by him on Wikipedia.

(3) To counter that i have a latest video taken 2 WEEKS ago , Please click here :-

Further Please go to YouTube and sort videos of Jaipur Duronto taken during 12 months and you will see WAP5 everywhere.

Currently from Mumbai Central all Rajdhani, Duronto and Shatabdi trains are now being hauled by WAP5. I am a regular traveler of this Train plus been at Mumbai Central lots of time. Jaipur Duronto was the only exception with WAP4 which was gradually replaced by WAP5 on permanent basis.

Satya Ranjan Mishra (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)sranjanm2002

Please read my opinion more carefully. I acknowledged that WAP4 was used in the past, WAP5 in the present, and I commented that the wording should make that clear, criticising the current wording. Clear now? My comment about flickr pictures and youtube videos was to point out that the sources provided by Superfast1111 are not reliable sources. Now you have offered us a youtube video. That is not a reliable source either. And all it does is show us a train -- it doesn't prove what other trains there are or are not.

Personally, I accept the information you've given based on your own knowledge. But Wikipedia has a policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, which binds us both (and everyone else). Please read and understand it. It begins by saying: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The justification for this policy is that, even though you are stating the accurate facts, many people who come to edit Wikipedia do not, and we cannot tell who is telling the truth and who isn't. So we depend on reliable sources, not taking people's word for it.

So quite simply, you should stop making it one person's word versus another person's word, and go looking for reliable sources. Not pictures and videos which could have been submitted by anyone, but proper documentary sources such as official documents, articles from respectable newspapers, and suchlike. This requirement applies to both of you. --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The images actually and very clearly date October 2013 [11] which isn't like a long, long time ago as claimed by a certain user but that fact being missed is nothing new. Stfg your option is also for now acceptable by me although unless Indian Railways has given Mr. Satya Ranjan Mishra a lifetime undertaking of using only WAP 5 engines, i wonder what will happen on the day if in the near future a WAP 4 is used or becomes a permanent fixture, will Mr. Mishra sue the Railways for failing to provide WAP 5 locomotion. You have to know that as with Railways the world over, Indian Railways agrees by virtue of a ticket to transport passengers in their allocated class ... Passengers are not supposed to be concerned with traction which is why whenever new trains are announced, they never disclose traction information although i fail to understand why the absolute insistence by Mr. Mishra. By the way, i do have a question : How is Mr. Mishra guaranteeing WAP 5 allocation for the Jaipur Duronto Express.

Another thing, the Howrah Rajdhani Express has been assigned WAP 1's, WAP 4's or more frequently WAP 7 so personally i would not object to all 3 locomotives being listed or and i need some WP:Good Faith here Firozpur Janata Express when i took this image [12], it had a WAP 4. When this was taken [13], it was a WAP 5. Dehradun Jan Shatabdi Express as a matter of routine keeps getting locomotives from Lucknow, Tughlakabad or even Ludhiana. The simple fact on Indian Railways is locomotives are routinely swapped for various reasons, why insist on a particular class. As for Mr. Mishra's glorious claim's of travel by the Jaipur Duronto, everyone of the more than 1200 images uploaded by me at Wikipedia, i have covered a far greater spectrum of trains than Mr. Mishra so perhaps he can tone that down a bit.

A final question for you Stfg. If i still am not entirely satisfied with your views, am i permitted under Wikipedia policies to seek another WP:Third Opinion or WP:Dispute Resolution ?? Superfast1111 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Superfast1111: First: if he cannot assure us that next month they won't use some different traction on the basis of his recent information, how can you assure us that they use WAP4 today, based on your pictures from 2013? Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Recentism?

Second, if the railway companies don't put out this information, then how can this section be anything other than original research?

For both these reasons, my best suggestion is that unless you can find some genuine reliable sources, the whole section should be deleted.

Per the disclaimer, Wikipedia Third Opinions are non-binding, although, since you made the 3O request, good faith would require you to address the reasoning given before you do something completely different. You can't ask for another third opinion, because that would be a fourth opinion, but you can take this to WP:Dispute Resolution if you wish. --Stfg (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaipur Duronto Express. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131125225205/http://www.indianrail.gov.in/ to http://www.indianrail.gov.in/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)