User talk:Austenba

Unsourced additions to National Express Coventry

Hello. I see that you have been adding a lot of context to the National Express Coventry recently, in the "PrimeLimes" and "cash fares" section. Unfortunately, these additions appear to have been opinionated slightly, they have a point of view in them. Wikipedia promotes a policy of having a neutral point of view. For any biased addition the counter argument needs to be given. Another policy is to cite sources, i.e. show where the information came from and prove it is both reliable and neutral.

In your edits to the above article, none of these policies appear to have been followed. You have added large quantities of unsourced and bias text. If I'm frank, I can see from your contributions that you are against bus priority schemes in the articles you have contributed to, and appear not to like National Express Coventry. When I reverted your edits for the first time, I made it clear why I was doing what I was in my edit summary. However, you have just put back the information with no reasons as to why you are doing so.

In the text you have added there are various facts and figures which have no source, in effect you could have made them up. Another way I can see you don't like the university corridor scheme is your use of sarcasm. The line "buses serving this route have now been cut from three per hour to two per hour, marking a major improvement for users" is an example of this. Wikipedia is about giving reliable information, sarcasm isn't needed.

If you can find sources for your edits and word them so that they don't violate the neutral point of view policy then some of the text may have a place. But, as it stands, it doesn't, so I am going to revert your edits once again. I hope you understand why. Arriva436^talk 15:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You say that "the page as it stands looks like an official webpage for the bus company, and placing of advertisements is also contrary to policy". Well, the main section that contributed to this was the "fares" section. I have deleted this per the polices and other pages given in my edit summary. Although it's earlier than other pages, it was going to go anyway as it has been discussed (all operators) and the general consensus was that it wasn't needed, being available in most cases on the operator's website.

You also say that "It is not possible to reference some material". Well, if it isn't possible, then you should add it. If you are in possession of documentary evidence of an ASA report, I doubt it was worded to damn the operator.

You say that your edits provide a balance to "hurrah for Coventry buses". Well I couldn't find any evidence of this in the article, and the additions you made just add more unsourced text. As you rightly say, the article is already tagged as lacking in citation, so adding any more won't help.

On my talk page you've also said "If you can point to any points in my edits that are not factually correct, I will either justify or remove them". Well the whole point is is that I cannot tell whether any edits are factually correct, as there is no source for them. You can't just "justify" them either without evidence.

Now the fares section has gone, it looks less like an advert, and hopefully it can be more about fact than opinions, and you find sources for you additions. I would also add that council-related bus priority scheme are probably more relevant on their own articles. I know in this case there's a partnership, but after all the the bus company just runs the buses, bus lane or no bus lane, they can't put one in! Arriva436^talk 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What you have done now is much better! You have given some sources and removed the silly wording. The article does include a section about "Primelines" (although it wasn't me who put it in), and it is of course relevant to Nat Ex Coventry. While it isn't perfect, there does seem to be more against than for (and there is nothing balancing the "reliability" section) I think that your text now does have a place in the article. I hope over time you can find more sources and make it a proper balanced argument. For now though, it is fine. Thank you also for your full co-operation, discussions are so important to reach a general consensus. Arriva436^talk 17:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Primeline route incorrect?

Please note the route which links Tile Hill with University Hospital (route 34) operates via the Binley Road corridor. The routes which link Tile Hill with the Ansty Road corridor is the 32 and 33 routes which do not get any closer than about 10 minutes walk from the Hospital. Curran1980 (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right - I have now corrected this - thank you. Austenba (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In regard to your edits where you say the route linking Tile Hill with University Hospital has been cut from 3 to 2 per hour ..... The 34 route originally was '2 per hour', In April 2006 the route was changed to run via Lower Stoke, Stoke Aldermoor and Ernesford Grange in lieu of Binley Road this made the route somewhat 10-15 minutes longer but it was increased to 3 per hour, In Sept 2007 it was reverted back to run 2 per hour and via Binley Road again. So there hasn't been a net loss nor gain in the frequency of service. On another note the original excuse for installing bus lanes on Binley Road was "to make the service to Walsgrave Hospital more reliable". Curran1980 (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)