User talk:Alzarian16/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Alzarian16, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Ace Cougar, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ace Cougar

A tag has been placed on Ace Cougar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to British Rail Class 180‎

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to British Rail Class 180‎. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Keith D (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Powers (TV series)

Hi Alzarian16, the short answer is no. The link was to footage uploaded by a fan group, who are most likely not to have permission from the copyright holder to upload the work. The relevant Wikipedia guideline is at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking which explains further why Wikipedia does not link to such content. Also, please consider if the references used are reliable sources, for example IMDb user reviews wouldn't be. Hope that helps, mattbr 09:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In the link you provided, IMDb is being used to provide general info about productions (i.e. they exist) rather than critical response. The comments cited are user-generated and are not representative or authoritative because anybody can post whatever they want (and you can always find someone who loved/hated something, so the same could be said of any production). mattbr 10:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The new link seems OK (although not the best for viewing figures) and you need to be careful about interpreting what was said (there is no mention of "average" viewing figures). Also, the statement that it was "generally well received by viewers" is not supported by the reference given. I would suggest you use the new link to provide some production information as this is the primary topic of it. However, I am struggling to find other (online) references that would help develop the article. I would also recommend the use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} to provide a bit more info about the references rather that just the links. mattbr 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you've done well to find the references you have. There may be some more info in offline sources, which may be worth perusing. In the meantime, I would suggest adding an infobox ({{Infobox television}} in this case) to summarise some of the information along with the ref formatting. mattbr 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for your insightful comments at Phase II of "BLP madness" ;) My theory is that most new editors want to keep encyclopedia unreferenced content. Okip (formerly Ikip) 19:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty convincing theory. It certainly applied to me; when my first article had a PROD put on it I fought tooth and nail to get it kept (and was ultimately successful, thanks in large part to a number of new references I found - arguably PROd working at its best). But it isn't just new editors who want unreferenced contetn kept, a number of established ones do too - take a look at the response to this AfD nomination. The current BLP debate seems to me to be yet another aspect of the running deletionism v inclusionism debate, and I favour inclusionism in this case. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

that is reassuring to know that established editors want this too.

talking about established editors, most editors have email activated, and one arbcom member recently said to me, to paraphrase, that most established editors talk offline. Okip (formerly Ikip) 10:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP cleanup thanks

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for your help at WP:Mistagged BLP cleanup. Keep up the good work! Gigs (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lothian Buses

Hi

I thought I'd ask your opinion on this as I noticed you making edits to Lothian Buses tonight. I was thinking about adding a section to the article about the company introducing the new ticketing machines to the buses, known as the "Wayfarer 200" ticket machines. According to the companys website, they are introducing these as part of the National Concessionary Travel Scheme and the machines are being provided by Transport Scotland. Do you reckon that this would be worth even a small mention in the article? --5 albert square (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be worth mentioning, although it doesn't really justify more than a couple of sentences. One possible location would be in the 'Current vehicles' subsection as this already includes information on vehicle features such as CCTV. It would also be a good idea to quote a reliable source for the information so that it isn't removed as unreliable. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that, I'll add that later on. I should be able to reference it against the companys own website :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! Just to let you know that I made some major changes to the article tonight (the untidiness of it has been annoying the hell out of me for some time now)! Anyway, I've posted some further ideas for improvement at Talk: Lothian Buses, your comments would be welcome and appreciated --5 albert square (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for London Country North East

On March 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article London Country North East, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lacey Brown

Thank you for your kind comments. As I saw the article originally I did think that it would be a delete without much argument, but as it has been significantly improved I can't see the reason for the debate any longer, but then I am not in the USA so am not aware of the media coverage this person receives, in contrast it is good to see the debate flourish as it shows how open Wiki is. Sorry for babbling on but I am still new and wanted to say thanks. --Wintonian (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No trouble, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I'm not in the USA either, but I always like to see an article survive if it deserves to. Alzarian16 (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

London bus operators

Watch out for Special:Contributions/86.18.180.208, and now... User:E15 3nl (Contribs). The IP was the one you reverted at East London (bus company), but I've noticed they've done similar stupid things left, right and centre, and I've had to revert them at most of the London Bus operator image. Now, they seem to have registered an account! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, thanks for the info... funny thing is, over on London Buses route 205 they actually made a constructive edit! (Even if it was really poorly formatted.) Alzarian16 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ricardo Brown (journalist)

This has actually been marked as unsourced since Jan 2007, not two weeks. If you've got some secondary sourcing then that's great, but I can't find any. If you don't do something with this, it is likely to be a BLP sitting unreferenced for another three years.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's tagged as unsourced since 2007 as that's when it was created, but the tag was only applied on 12 March 2010. I felt this was too recent to tag an article for deletion, but having searched for sources I can't find any so I wouldn't dispute it if you PRODded for non-notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I watch pages I comment on, so there's no need for that talkback thing. Actually, it has been marked as unreferenced for three years. [See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Brown_%28journalist%29&action=historysubmit&diff=104410502&oldid=104409494]. As for prodding for non-notability, I can't. Things can't be prodded twice. In any case, I've no idea whether it is notable or not, however it is unverifiable seemingly. You could consider reverting your removal of the prod - otherwise it looks like it is staying.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it seems it was only an unreferenced, not a BLP unreferenced, until two weeks ago [1], shich is what confused me. I've reverted my edit and restored the PROD. Sorry for the trouble this caused - I'll chack more carefully in future. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for having the grace to hit reverse.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD on Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013

References from newspapers and political site have been added for numerous candidates. I urge retraction of your vote. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On the buses

Please could you revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68 as I have added some sourced history for this route and am still turning up other sources such as this account in Time Out. We will have no difficulty doing similar work for all these articles but we first need to keep them so that the work may still be done. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of London Buses route 66

London Buses route 66, an article you contributed to, is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77. Okip 15:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I was well aware of the fact. Thanks anyway. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For taking care of so many mistagged BLPs. Thanks! Maurreen (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's dull work, and you've done much more than I. Have a good day! :) Maurreen (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for BakerBus

On April 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BakerBus, which you created or substantially expanded. 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) 06:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London Country North East

The article London Country North East you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London Country North East for eventual comments about the article. Well done! P.S. It needs a tiny bit of work, but not enough for a "Hold". Pyrotec (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for reviewing it so quickly. I'll look to get those minor problems sorted as soon as possible. Apparently this is the first UK bus company article to make GA - quite an achievement considering it's only existed for a month. Thanks again! Alzarian16 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Class 313

Yes, you're right - I misread the edit dates and thought it was today. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Woottens Luxury Travel

The article Woottens Luxury Travel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Woottens Luxury Travel – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, but as I've explained in my edit summary I disagree that it isn't notable. Four local news stories, significant coverage on a radio station's website and a mention in a museum's travel page - that feels like notability to me. Very few other bus companies have this much coverage. The problem is that the company use more than one name (Tiger Line (bus company) and Woottens Coaches, both redirects, give fairly high numbers of search results), so I can understand why you wouldn't have found much - but it's not worthy of deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say, but Alzarian has said it. The name of the article (the legal name of the company) differs to to trading name of the company, so you weren't going to find a lot of results. The Tiger Line name presents another problem. Personally, I would name the article "Woottens (coach company)" or similar but there's no reason to change it now. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not name the article Tiger Line then, per WP:COMMONNAME? On a semi-related topic, Alzarian16, I think if you keep editing the way you do now, by early 2011 you should be ready for Adminship. Just toss in some New Page Patrolling, commenting at the Village Pump(s) and so forth, a bit more diversity of edits generally. Abductive (reasoning) 18:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that Tiger Line only covers one part of the company's operations, although admittedly this is the section which has received the majority of the coverage. If the coach operation traded as Tiger Line as well, or even if the bus operation made up the majority of the fleet (as in BakerBus for example) I would have used the trading name, but the Tiger Line division numbers around 10 buses and the Woottens division around 20 coaches. In this case it's probably better to use the official name, or possibly Arriva's suggestion of the trading name and a disambiguating phrase.

I'm pleased that you think I'd be an Admin candidate in the near future! I had considered the possibility, hence the contributions to policy areas such as the BLP RfC, but it's certainly encouraging to hear the idea endorsed by an established user. Thanks for the suggestions - I'll certainly look at those areas and try contributing to them. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My endorsement doesn't count for much. In a way one has to choose between really getting things done or being an admin. You could also dabble in a few cleanup operations, choosing from Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories. See you around. Abductive (reasoning) 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MK Metro

Any chance you have have a look at Talk:MK Metro? Thanks, Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Woottens Luxury Travel

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carr_Street_(St._Louis)

Just a heads up - have fun :) Black Kite (t) (c) 19:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I don't think keeping that one as a stand-alone would be a major problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• And yes I'd merge in the Salisbury Street one too (if there's much to merge), it looks like a largely cut and paste job anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lancashire bus route X43

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

I voted neutral for 1-2 people. The reason is I try to be nice and didn't want to vote oppose. So the strong support and neutral feelings got voted as "support" and oppose feelings were voted as "neutral". So at least a few neutral votes were actually opposed but voted as neutral as to not hurt somebody's feelings. In Wikipedia, I try not to hurt others' feelings. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. It's an intersting point, and I know I did something similar on one occasion, but as I didn't really know many of the candidates that well and had little time to research them I also used a neutral vote to avoid making a wrong decision. If that hadn't been an option I would probably have waited until I had more time, looked up everybody really well and then expressed a proper opinion on as many of the candidates as possible. It would certainly be interesting to find out if other users did this, or if every oppose was for the reason you gave. Perhaps we should raise the point on the RfC talk page? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Butting in here (sorry, I have Suomi Finland 2009's talk page watchlisted, and I'm a horrible talk page lurker...)

I found this tool today, which is interesting - it'll show how an editor !voted in RfAs.

My results were fascinating - I'd assumed I only ever !voted support in RfAs - I can see a neutral there that really surprised me.

Anyway, apologies for butting in...!

TFOWR^{is this too long?} 19:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about butting in, any reasonable input's welcome. That's an interesting and very useful tool which I had no knowledge of, although since RFA is based on open voting rather than SecurePoll the comparison isn't perhaps all that clear cut. It certainly adds another dimension though. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! It's one of the things I find interesting about Wikipedia, the discussion and consensus approach to decision making, instead of simply counting votes. TFOWR^{is this too long?} 19:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Smuggling in literature

This is one of those obviously common and notable themes in literature. I added Carmen and removed your Prod. Are you at all familiar with the theme? At the very least, the whole community should discuss its deletion. Prodding is for non-controversial cuts. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw that it was unsourced, orphaned and surprisingly short - and indeed that the inclusion criteria seemed a bit subjective - and felt that it wasn't the sort of article that benefits the encyclopedia. Looking at the improvements made by you, NickPenguin and Vocidenitore it seems I was wrong. It is a valid topic after all, so I'm not going to push for deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For being so nice after proposing deletion of Smuggling in fiction and going along with its rescue. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what can I say? Thank you very much! Alzarian16 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Alzarian16. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear me

Thanks for your help.ترجمان05 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

px

WP:FOOTBALL archiving

Hi there. Whenever you remove closed AfDs from the list at WP:FOOTBALL, don't forget to list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Deletion archive. Thanks, GiantSnowman 05:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about that. I'll try not to again! Alzarian16 (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion for a requested move of WP:Ownership of articles

Hello! I have requested a move for WP:Ownership of articles → WP:Page ownership. As you participated in the previous discussion, could you please voice your opinion again regarding this move, as it is my intention to restart the discussion with a clean slate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)