User talk:WatcherZero

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.117.19.208 (talk) at 19:26, 25 August 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, WatcherZero, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Join us?
Hello, WatcherZero! Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Greater Manchester-related articles. Given the interest we're assuming you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Greater Manchester? It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Greater Manchester-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. The project has in-house specialists to support and facilitate your ideas. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.


If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We hope to be working with you in the future!

--Jza84 |  Talk  01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cable

If Cable is Business Secretary, that would make him Secretary of State for Business and Whatsit, not a junior minister at Treasury. Anyway, where is the source? -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source. -Rrius (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Supertram

Thank you, really value your corrections and positive comments. The last bit was too opinionated. I wondered, does the BRT section still need further neutralising? Regards Nostalgic34 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate you making any changes you feel that are appropriate. This is my first non-music album article so lots to learn (I really hate BRT systems!). Cheers Nostalgic34 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waterspaces

Hi, please can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Waterspaces and add any comments you might have. Thanks :) Raywil (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool tramway

Your new ref re the Starr Gate depot doesn't seem to work, as www.blackpooltrams.info seems to be inaccessible. David Biddulph (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive

Hi, I have the reference that I used in the above article (Colin Speakeman (1985). Public Transport in West Yorkshire, Ten Years of Achievement. Metro–West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive. ISBN 0951020102. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)) and it is quite clear about the formation of the Executive, as an Executive in 1974. Nowhere in the book does it mention the entity "West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority". It was written by the Director General of the WYPTE. Could you provide a reference that the WYPTE was formed as the WYPTA? Scillystuff (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I've found the proof in another wiki article - Passenger Transport Executive which quotes "The 1974 reorganisation also abolished the PTAs, and their role was taken over by the Metropolitan county councils (MCCs). However when the MCCs were abolished in 1986, the PTAs were re-created." So it had to have been an executive in 1974 and did not become an authority again until 1986, one year after my reference was written. Scillystuff (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well caught

Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metrolink RTD

I've taken the line Altrincham -Bury off the diagram as all it seems to do is disrupt the formatting: I can't see what information it provides is not given anyway. Now, however, there is no disruption on the template but it does not display properly on the article. Any idea why? Britmax (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Deansgate-Castlefield and Piccadilly Gardens long names, that Altrincham-Bury but you removed (which I support you on, was irritating to me too) was causing the template to autosize so that it wasnt an issue now its gone the infobox is 300px wide but those names require the box to be 335px wide, to solve it we really need to make Deansgate-Castlefield a multi line name or to narrow the route map in some other way. WatcherZero (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitachi Super Express

[1] Can you "check Hammonds speech to the commons" yourself - eg by providing a reference to it. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability - readers should be able to find and read the source of the information. Thank you. There is no mention of 2016 in this statement from Philip Hammond either [2] - what is the source ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some particular disability which prevents you from adding formatted references yourself, including the full details without being prompted to do it? Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the BR naming convention

It would appear that we're free to come up with our own system. I emailed the National Rail Museum with this:

Since British Rail was privatized are the locomotive TOPS classes (ie: Class 60) still referred to as "British Rail Class: 60" or has it changed to something else (ie: 'Class 60', 'TOPS: Class 60', etc.)
There's a slight dispute over this on Wikipedia, and I'd like to help by securing a final, reliable answer, (Plus I'm a little curious myself.)

I got this response:

Thank you for your enquiry. Oddly enough, I can’t find a definitive answer to your question. Most publications I’ve seen produced by railway companies seem to just use “Class 60” etc. Whether there is an official terminology for it I have no idea!
Sorry for the lack of a conclusive answer.

Not sure if this helps, but I figured I'd pass along the information. Good luck with it. --The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Light Rail

Which discussion are you refrring to? If you read the discussion on the template talk page, it was agreed they could be removed. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years

I did not create {{Britishmetros}}. That was Duncharris (talk · contribs). Having London Underground and Glasgow Subway on the light rail template implies they are light rail, whiich they are not. Light rail does not necessarily mean metro system, although the Tyne & Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway fall into both categories. In fact Welshleprechaun readded the national rail links. Do you think we should reopen this to a wider audience? Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 00:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Metrolink

I've looked in to the details relating to the Manchester Metrolink passenger numbers reference you added a while back, which is a very good reference. However, there are two quite important issues that have been overlooked. The exact wording currently used in the article is:

"In their defence GMPTE pointed to the more than doubling of passenger numbers over a period of fifteen years compared to their previous status as proof that the conversions are popular and increase usage, passenger numbers have risen 160% since opening in 1992 and 2008"

Your reference shows that 8.1 million passengers used the service in the 1992/3 financial year. However, only the Victoria-Bury section was open in April 1992 which means we would expect the 1993/4 year figures to be higher as the Altrincham line was open for the full year.

There is a further issue in that starting in 1999 a new, non-converted Eccles line opened and passenger numbers increased significantly soon after this. The Eccles line figures are obviously included in the spreadsheet you've referenced to but they are certainly can't be used as "proof that the conversions are popular and increase usage"

I'll attempt to rewrite this section later on today to be more transparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstudent (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You added the comment saying "By 2002/3 passenger numbers were 5% in excess of expected maturity ridership, which makes it the only new tram system to exceed targets." For it to exceed targets phase 1 needed over 12 million passengers at maturity - which it got. However, phase 2 needed over 6 million at maturity to exceed targets. There isn't anything to say phase 2 exceeded 6.0 million passengers before 2005, only that the combined usage for the two phases reached just under 20 million. If phase 1 had, for example, 16 million passengers at that stage it would mean that Metrolink phase 1 exceeded expected maturity ridership but Metrolink phase 2 under achieved, so there isn't enough evidence at present to say overall Metrolink exceeded expected maturity ridership, unless you can find detailed figures for Metrolink phase 2. Sheliaval (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester Statutory City Region names

Hi there. In response to your corrections made to the Greater Manchester Statutory City Region, I would like to explain why I felt it was so necessary to change the name on the page. If you look at the sufficient details, you will notice that the city region covers not only the City of Manchester, but the whole Greater Manchester county; and indeed some other external areas - so as it covers more than just Manchester, you'll find that the proper name is 'Greater Manchester Statutory City Region', not only because of the area it covers, but because 'Manchester City Region' is only an alternative name for the city region because it's based mainly around Manchester. Hope this could shed some light on the matter. Thanks. JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the city region included the Cheshire district of Warrington as part of it and the districts of Congleton, Macclesfield and Vale Royal before their abolition in the local government reshuffle in 2009; it also included the Derbyshire district of High Peak. Further reading, it says that the city region now covers just the Greater Manchester county and comes under the governance of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), so as you can see that the city region still covers more than just the City of Manchester. JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With both the GMCA and the AGMA being set up to provide the top tier authority throughout Greater Manchester, the statutory city region has been left very much redundant when it comes to strategic governance then. JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for explaining that to me in further detail. I didn't know about that. :) JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for explanation on Wikipedia procedures

Hi. At Talk:Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems you said "for a change of this magnitude a page should be prepared in namespace at a complete or near complete stage before change process is begun". This appears to suggest that it is possible to prepare a new page or set of interlinked pages separately and not make them visible until they are ready. This is something that I have previously wanted to do, but I could not find an explanation of how to do it. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Neil Strickland (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my user page. Neil Strickland (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Metro

Hello there. I noticed this edit you made on the talk page of Midland Metro. Just thought I'd let you know that me and a few other editors have given the article a massive makeover, and deleted most of the bloated crap that was there previously, and made it far more concise and neutral. G-13114 (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool tramway maps

Hi, I reverted your changes in maps of Blackpool tramway network. I was basing on SVG over PNG Wikipedia principle and more informative map vs less informative map principle. I removed old PNG schema because it has multiple flaws - it showed wrong scale (compare loop size to system length), it does not have background and it does not show old dismantled part of system. Please do not revert my changes but first of all add entry on article discussion page Talk:Blackpool tramway and let community discuss which map is more informative. Now article has 3 maps - route schema, modern coastal line and dismantled city lines which I think is ok (please compare to for example Warsaw Tramway --Jkan997 (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for your edits to Template:Orders_for_and_deliveries_of_Airbus_and_Boeing_aircraft, especially simplifying the citations. Ex nihil (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Amistad (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Merseyrail. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WatcherZero. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Competition between Airbus and Boeing

Please stop reverting on this article and seek consensus on the article's talk page. Tiderolls 15:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is two editors following existing consensual practise (When it last came up several years ago) for the page and one anonymous editor trying to edit it. WatcherZero (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a dispute regarding the content of the article; that is a lack of consensus. If you revert to your version of the article again without determining consensus you will be jeopardizing your editing privilege. Tiderolls 21:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus had been previously reached the last time the issue arose (when Boeing were claiming AWAC orders as commercial passenger jets) and I wasn't the only one reverting this changes. I also provided the evidence used to support the previous consensus that as Airbus didn't include military jets and the page is focused on civil aviation competition that it was not comparable, a complete history of Airbus orders with no A330 tanker orders included http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/?eID=maglisting_push&tx_maglisting_pi1%5BdocID%5D=231951 .
You are making a case here for your content when you should be attempting to persuade your fellow editors on the article's talk page. You need to understand that as an admin I am, for the most part, not interested in content. Please take your reasoning to the article's talk page and determine what consensus may exist for your version of the article. Tiderolls 12:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus already exists there as there has been no changes or talk requests since the change which is why I was confused as to your interest. WatcherZero (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Powerless (TV series)#Adam West

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Powerless (TV series)#Adam West. -- AlexTW 03:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Not hyphenating the compound modifier "light[-]rail" (something), just because "we don't do that"?

Will you please see my proposal at talk:light rail?

Thanks if so, 97.117.19.208 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC) for now.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WatcherZero&oldid=797236840"