User talk:Liamdavies/Archive 1

License tagging for File:Melbourne trams route 1 map.png
Thanks for uploading File:Melbourne trams route 1 map.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

James Moore photo suggestion
Thanks Liam for the photo suggestions, there were a couple of other James Moores - a building material supplier and a bishop. so I might need to do a bit of research to see if these pics are of my railway engineer - at least one seems to be the right period at least. all the best. Garyvines (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Trams in Melbourne
Hi Liam. As an interstate resident, I can confirm the truth of the comment about tourism. I'll get back to you about a suitable reference. Any book about trams in Australia published since the 1970s would probably suffice. I don't mind you putting back into the article the English language reference for the size of the network. I removed it only because it was for 2008, not 2011. I agree with your idea about merging the sections about proposals, etc. Before you do that, you might want to consider moving the stuff about the proposals to some of the pages about the individual routes rather than deleting it altogether. (As I understand them, most of the proposals are for extending existing routes rather than building completely new ones, so material about a proposal to extend line X could be moved to the article about line X rather than deleted.) Finally, I was in Mel last weekend, and took some photos of trams in the city centre, but I haven't uploaded any to commons yet. One thing I noticed is that the Ws are now rarely seen, so it may be appropriate to change the photo in the infobox, perhaps to a B2 class, which I think is probably now the best candidate for being described as a "typical Melbourne tram". Bahnfrend (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. After looking through the pictures I'd taken, I decided on a different idea for the infobox image.  I hope you like it. I'll upload some more pictures over the next week or so. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Liam. The article looks much improved to me. Keep up the good work! Bahnfrend (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
I am really sorry and will re-read the guidelines again. Sorry about all these images that have been renamed and I am willing to do a favour for you, whatever it is (not too big) and also fix the redirects to the images.

Really Really Sorry.

David . S  06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Wait! As you did say that you did not like simply redirects to images, on the 'Move Image' page, it does say that a Bot will fix this later although I will personally fix the 'double-redirects' by myself.

Sorry for ANY inconvenience caused and, if possible, please respond by sending an email by using the email icon on the top-right of my page because I'd rather emails than posts.

Thanks and Sorry again.

David . S  06:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Trams in Melbourne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairfield railway station (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, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for E-class Melbourne tram
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

July WMAU Melbourne Meetup
Hi, At last month's June meetup we discussed the idea of setting up a Training Course at a University of the Third Age (U3A) to be held in 2013 and named Becoming a Wikipedia editor. In order to get this course up and running we are calling for volunteers to help develop the idea, and either tutor part of the course, or provide one on one help to students in the class. All local Wikipedians are welcome to discuss this at our 11am meetup to be held this Sunday on 22 July. Please add your name to the attending list at Meetup/Melbourne 23. Food and beverages are provided. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited Trams in Melbourne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan Transit Authority (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) 12:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

New infobox
Hi Liam. I am currently developing a new Template:Infobox tram route, for use on articles such as Melbourne tram route 96. The infobox is based on Template:Infobox bus line, and would be used in all of the articles about Melbourne tram routes in place of the existing Melbourne-specific infobox, which I think is not very attractive or informative. You can have a look at the prototype on my sandbox page, and I would welcome any comments (the infobox would also have a yarra trams logo at the top when included in the actual articles). If you want to see how the infobox looks on a real page, I've already put it into the English language articles about the Brussels tram routes, eg Brussels tram route 3, but I don't propose to put a coloured strip across the top of the infoboxes in the articles about the Melbourne tram routes. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your alterations and comments. I've now put the new infobox on the Melbourne tram route 109 article.  It incorporates all of your suggestions, except that the background at the top has been reverted to white, because the yarra trams logo doesn't look right on a green background.  I'm now going to leave that article as is for a little while, to see whether there's any reaction from any other editors before I add the infobox to any other articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually possible to display two logos in the infobox. I've modified Melb tram route 109 accordingly.  To see what the two logos look like when displayed together, hit "edit" on that article, remove the comment marks from around the two parameters immediately above the "image" parameter in the infobox, and then press "show preview".  That said, I think the infobox looks better with just the yarra trams logo; I've modified the "operator" parameter so that it now says "Yarra Trams for Public Transport Victoria". Bahnfrend (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now added a zone parameter. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Transdev Melbourne
Hey there, we've now managed to expand Transdev Melbourne to the extent that it is eligible for WP:DYK and can (hopefully) be placed on the front page of wiki. I wish to nominate it in both our names, but would like to sort a few little things out first. Firstly, what should the hook be? We need something short and catchy that is supported by the text of the article. I would like to ask if it can be held over until 1 August and run with the hook "...today Transdev Melbourne start operating 30% of Melbourne's bus network?", or something along those lines. But ideas would be good.

Secondly, I'd like to come to some consensus about destination names, I would prefer to use the names stated in the PTV timetables as: they indicate the actual suburb first, not the shopping centres brand name; they are verifiable through the PTV website; and they are sometimes broader and therefore more accurate (Box Hill comes to mind, true the station is in the shopping centre, but it also serves the railway station, and broader suburb), I would prefer: Either piped or redirects could be used, to still send users to an accurate, specific page, but the locality would come first rather than shopping centre brand name. This will aid users when they sort the columns. You can reply here, on my talk page, or on the Transdev Melbourne talk page, I'll keep an eye on all of them.
 * Doncaster Shoppingtown over Westfield Doncaster
 * Box Hill over Centro Box Hill
 * Southland Shopping Centre over Westfield Southland

Also, sorry if I've been standing on your toes a little, but two users editing simultaneously can sometimes cause conflicts. Liamdavies (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree between the two of us we have created an informative article. Guess the other thing that may happen is the article may need to be renamed, I just presumed Transdev Melbourne would be the name when I created it.


 * My thinking on shopping centre names is that Centro Box Hill is the centre's name, if you stood in the street opposite it, that's what you would see. Also clarifies where in Box Hill it starts. Eliminates potential confusion where there may be a shopping centre and a High Street shopping strip in close proximity. It is a brand name, but I don't think it contravenes Wiki's rules on advertising. But I do see your point, I am anti calling things by sponsor names, eg never refer to stadiums by their commercial name, Docklands Stadium is not Etihad Stadium in my book.


 * No damage done to toes, two editors will never agree entirely, but we were both headed in the same direction, took each other's opinions on board and ended up with a better finished product, many thanks for your efforts. Put it this way, I have had far more frustrating conflicts with other editors.Mo7838 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * One last thing to ask is, how good are you at identifying bus types? I'm very familiar with trams, but buses not so much, and it would be nice to insert a fleet table into pages. Regards, Liamdavies (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Reasonably good (I think!!).Mo7838 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like were are wanting to move in the same direction (yay civility is good!), I agree with the anti brand name, but that's not my primary reason for wanting to change (although I must admit it is a little). My main concern is that if a user hits the sort alphabetically button on a column, Doncaster will show up under W, Box Hill under C etc etc. This is why I wish to pipe the link to the shopping centre, but use the suburb/PTV name. I'm also wondering if we should use a flatlist like in the infobox to separate large lists of suburbs, such as the orbitals. And... what is our definition of a 'hub', if we sort 'standards' out here (or on a talk page somewhere later) we can use the Transdev page (which I feel is already almost the best developed) as a template for the others.


 * My feeling is that the name can stay, and it should only be changed if Transdev use a trading as name (alla Yarra Trams and Metro Trains, it was in the contract for both the rail operators, who knows what the story is here).


 * Pages 23, 25 & 26 of the tender document list the buses in the fleet, could you please identify which ones we have in the comms cats MBL, NBC and SmartBus? Then maybe we can start to build a table, at least representing the fleet for a start. Also, do you mind if I go ahead and make the changes I've proposed to the routes table? Liamdavies (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point re shopping centres. What defines a hub, bit like how long is a piece of string? It's hard to pinpoint, I look for where there are multiple services either terminating or passing through, but where do you draw the line? Certainly think it should be kept below 10 members. Will be able to identify the bus types.Mo7838 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Photos identified:
 * Melbourne Bus Link
 * 1) Volgren bodied Scania L94UB in Queen Street, Melbourne
 * 2) Volgren bodied Scania L94UB
 * 3) Volgren bodied Scania L94UB in Market Street, Melbourne


 * National Bus Company (by row)
 * 1) sold
 * 2) sold
 * 3) DesignLine bodied MAN 16.240
 * 4) Custom Coaches bodied MAN 15.220 outside the Young and Jackson Hotel
 * 5) DesignLine bodied MAN 16.220
 * 6) Custom Coaches bodied MAN 15.220
 * 7) DesignLine bodied MAN 16.240
 * 8) DesignLine bodied MAN 16.240
 * 9) Custom Coaches bodied MAN 12.220
 * 10) sold
 * 11) sold


 * SmartBus
 * 1) DesignLine bodied MAN 16.240
 * 3) DesignLine bodied MAN 16.240 in Mount Alexander Road
 * 4) DesignLine bodied MAN 16.220Mo7838 (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Volgren bodied Scania L94UB in St Kilda Road
 * 2) Volgren bodied Scania L94UB in Flinders St West
 * 3) Custom Coaches bodied Scania K230UB in Queen Street


 * Convention is that in the absence of a commencement date field, the founded field is used. Maybe the template should have an extra field added? Transdev Melbourne Pty Ltd was founded as a legal entity in December 2012 and this would be misleading.Mo7838 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added commenced and ceased operations parameters to the template, this should make for a more specific and less misleading infobox. If you want any tweaks I'd be happy to carry them out. Liamdavies (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

CDC
Hi again,

Have you seen that CDC have bought Drivers bus routes? It might be worth creating a new article 'CDC Victoria', and merging at least the Melbourne operators into it (Eastrans/Westrans). Thoughts?

PS I'm having a little trouble figuring out exactly what buses Transdev will get vis a vis the tender document and bus Australia list, can you try to sort out the mess of a list I put on the talk page (I suspect that some of the separate models the Government lists might not actually exist), I can also take photos, living in the inner north. It would be good to get one of Drivers buses, but I'm a little far to be bothered. Are you anywhere near where they run?

Regards, Liamdavies (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Re CDC Victoria, there is already a section on the ComfortDelGro Cabcharge for 'corporate' information. As the CDC Victoria operations have separate trading names, think it best they be retained as such. If anything the Hillsbus, Westbus and Hunter Valley operations need to be broken out into separate articles.


 * I think it a bit of a fruitless exercise trying to tie back the tender document to the Fleetlists, since the tender was issued buses will have come and gone, best to see what transpires in August. Only other change I thought of should of, should the background colour for the SmartBus services be changed to orange on grey?Mo7838 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair point, I was just thinking that one larger article that encapsulates the histories of CDC Victoria's subsidiaries and operations would be more comprehensive. I'm not to sure what to do with the SmartBus colouring, they used to have colours based on routes (which I would like to have used as backgrounds for the numbers), but the PTV website gives no difference now, so it might be best to hold tight, and wait and see. I suspect that many Transdev routes will become closer to SmartBus in terms of hours of operation and frequency, so it may become a non-issue. What do you think of the use of flatlist in the SmartBus via section? Should I reverse it, or roll it out to the other two orbitals? I'm quite partial to it, but want more input.


 * I've also thought about hubs, and would suggest that we include: Sunshine, Footscray, Melbourne CBD, Doncaster Shoppingtown, The Pines Shopping Centre, Box Hill, Southland Shopping Centre and possibly St Kilda and Ringwood. Thoughts? Liamdavies (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because the PTV site doesn't colour differntiate, doesn't mean Wiki can't. Perhaps orange on silver for SmartBus to reflect the livery and yellow on black or black on orange for NightRider.


 * Don't think the flatlist is a goer, better with commas IMO.


 * Hubs seems ok, it is an imperfect science after all. Mo7838 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

TransdevTSL
Reason I removed TransdevTSL wikilinks from KDR Melbourne was that the article was redirecting to Sydney bus operator Transdev Shorelink Buses. I have removed the redirection and commenced a new article, although does need expanding.Mo7838 (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Transfield's half yearly update for 31/12/10 states the Brisbane Ferries business was also sold in December 2010, have amended article to reflect.Transfield 31/12/10 While Veolia & Transdev have merged they seem to trade under different names in different places. In Sydney they operate bus services under both names, yet tickets have the combined name on them. Just to further complicate Veolia & Transfield operate the Sydney Ferries business, albeit not under the TransdevTSL brand.Mo7838 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne Bus Link
Hi, why do you list Dysons as the sole owner of MBL, they do not own it 100%. Read articles from last year you'll see that, Dysons Directors still only own 50% of MBL and East West. I do not know where got that idea from, but it is very misleading Here's a quote from the link below "The Board of Directors of Reservoir Bus Group, together with the Board of Directors of the Dyson Group of Companies, are pleased to confirm the sale of Reservoir Bus Company and Midland Tours to the Dyson group of Companies." http://dysongroup.com.au/press-release and http://issuu.com/mediaflash/docs/ob_07nov12_bz "Rusell Ward Retires after 44 years with Reservoir Bus Comapny. He remains as Managing Director of Melbourne Bus Link, and continues his involvement with East West Bus Lines"

Rusell Ward, is one of the Directors, who is from RBC, He and all other Directors from RBC, kepted there shares in those 2 operators. No where has Dysons said they own 100% of East West or MBL. But if you want more proof, join BusAustralia forum, and one user there, who is a Dysons family member, even conformed the fact they don't know 100% of these 2 operators.

Like the user points out here http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=819651#p819651 "MBL & East West are completely seperate businesses. Operationally Dysons will take over the running of East West but stays as a seperate business."

Is that enough proof now, for you to stop editing and saying Dysons own 100% of these operators (talk)

Transdev Melbourne Fleet
Seem be a lot of discussion here about what buses Transdev will have when start running the MBBF. It's rather simple, All MBL and National buses will go to Transdev, as well as most of the Ventura Smartbuses, expect for 6-8 which are kepted for Route 900. If you need anymore help with this, let me know. (talk)

Transdev Melbourne/Dysons Group
Ok then, I will not edit the Transdev Melbounrne Page, what a shame as my Fleet info was 99.99% correct. Well good luck, getting the information yourself. I run the Fleet Lists on Bus Australia, and if I want, I can chose to not keep it up to date. Then be much harder the get the information. Also you and Mo7838, need to learn, Dysons do not own MBL or East West, 100%. I suggest, you join, ATDB, and give member Dyso, a PM, as his a family member, he might be able to explain it you better. If They had of bought MBL, and East West, it would of been mentioned in the press release, but no, it only mentions, RBC, and Midland Tours, which RBC own. But maybe you want to see my staff letters too?

Wish you 2 good luck, cause you're going end up having a lot of information wrong, or hard time getting everything you. For Most they'd be better off looking at Bus Australia Site. MAN 16.242 (talk

Sorry, I made up my mind, I'm gone, but don't come asking for my help, when takeover happens, and then you want fleet info.MAN 16.242 (talk

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melbourne tram route 30, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Etihad Stadium (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) 11:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sydney steam tram or Sydney Steam Tram
Hello Liam, In Minimum railway curve radius, Captains Flat railway line & Balloon loop there is now a red link to Sydney steam tram and in Upper Nepean Scheme a red link to Sydney Steam Tram. Could you or one of your Aussie friends start an article on either variant? Peter Horn User talk 02:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Please see my reply at User talk:Peter Horn. Peter Horn User talk 12:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Transdev Melbourne
The DYK project (nominate) 09:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Naming commons categories
Hi Liam

I have decided to start categorising consensusns images of Melbourne trams in similar fashion to the categorisation of Lisbon trams images. In particular, I propose creating categories for individual trams, eg commons:Category:Lisbon tram 571 (see also commons:Category:Trams in Lisbon by number). This raises an issue of nomenclature. Vicsig and a number of other websites identify individual Melbourne trams by class subtype, a dot, and then the individual number, eg D1.3501. However, I have noted that the names of images you have uploaded to commons omit the dot, eg W7 1005, as do some other people who upload images to the internet. Do you have any comment on which alternative is preferable for the naming of commons categories (ie which example is better: Category:MLelbourne tram D1.3501 or Category:Melbourne tram W7 1005?)? Bahnfrend (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this, wellrevert,demand consensus, and leave the project if consesous is gained. Liamdavies (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Point taken. I hadn't been aware of the discussion about the Prague categories.  Having now read that discussion, it seems to me to be a specific example of the more general debate over whether commons is a repository of files useful to Wikimedia projects, or a repository of files "useful for an educational purpose".  See the op-eds here and here.  I think there is value in creating separate categories for individual Melbourne trams, because sometimes a commons visitor, like a Vicsig visitor, will want to browse images of a specific tram.  Categories for individual trams would become more useful the more images you have, and would also encourage the uploading of more images.  I also think there's a fairly straightforward solution to the genuine problem you have identified.  The solution is to organise the categorisation differently from the way it is presently organised for Lisbon and Prague.  This would be done by making each of the categories for individual trams a sub-category of a new commons:Category:Trams in Melbourne by number, and also by leaving each of the images in the individual tram categories directly in the category for the relevant tram class, without also making the individual tram categories a sub-category of the tram class category as well.  Appropriate instructions on how to categorise correctly would be included at the top of every category page (I am familiar with other groups of categories that have corresponding instructions on how to categorise images in that group).  Under this system, which would be an example of a category scheme, when you're looking for an image of a particular tram class (eg to illustrate an article), you can browse a category for that class and all the images will be visible, and when you're looking for an image of a specific tram, you can browse a category for that specific tram.  Somewhat surprisingly, the discussion about the Prague trams doesn't make this suggestion, but the same system could (and should) be used for Prague (and Lisbon) as well.  To illustrate how it might work, I've created a sample page, commons:Category:Melbourne tram D1.3528, which is (temporarily) a hidden category at the moment.  This would be a subcategory of a new commons:Category:Trams in Melbourne by number, but would not be a sub-category of commons:Category:Combino trams in Melbourne.  Instead of sub-categorisation, all images in the individual tram categories would also be directly categorised in the latter category.  This is not overcategorisation, because no image would be in both a category and a sub-category of that category.  All that would be happening is that categories that could be made a sub-category of another category are deliberately not made sub-categories of that category, so that the images that fit into the former category are available, for convenience, to be browsed in the one category.  I can't see that there can be any genuine objection to this, because I have looked at commons:Commons:Categories, and it doesn't say that a category that can be a sub-category of another category must be a sub-category of the other category.  Additionally, commons wouldn't be able to have category schemes if there were a rule as rigid as that. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562529115 your edit] to Light rail in Sydney may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Trams in Zurich
Hi. I've reverted some of your changes to Trams in Zurich. Please see Talk:Trams in Zurich for my reasons. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. However I must confess I don't totally understand it. You state:


 * a concept which doesn't exist, per MOS:IMAGE, a page should render at all resolutions


 * I've now carefully re-read MOS:IMAGE, together with MOS:IMAGESYNTAX and WP:IUP which it links. I cannot see anything that says a page should render at all resolutions. Indeed, I don't believe that it is possible to create a page with more than one image on it that will render at 'all resolutions' without stacking issues. Surely if all you do is remove images until it renders well at 1920x1080, then you are still vulnerable to it not rendering at 3840x2160 (or whatever).


 * However, what I can see in MOS:IMAGE is a list of 10 bullet points, all of which the article currently complies with.


 * You also wrote:


 * MOS:IMAGE says to avoid images facing, not that it can't occur


 * Surely if the MOS says you should avoid something, you should avoid. Either way the MOS is much more explicit about this than it appears to be about having a page render at all resolutions.


 * Please believe me, I don't deliberately want to make things look ugly. It is just that, to me, losing all those relevant images just so that things line up better at some arbitrary resolution is not a price worth paying. Especially as everything is fine at what I still think of as more reasonable resolutions. If there is a way of squaring this circle, I'd be more than happy.


 * Normally I'd try to work out such a way, which is exactly what I was trying to do with my subsequent edits. However I'm a bit hampered in this, because my hardware won't let me set a resolution anywhere near 1920x1080, so I cannot tell if what I've done has worked or not. Any suggestions. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, I genuinely don't want to turn this into an argument about policy wording, but the bullet point 3 you quote reads in full:


 * Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading or at the top of the lead), not immediately above the section heading.


 * It is quite clear (especially given the last phrase) that what it is talking about here is the placement of the [[File:...]] markup within the === Section === structure. Not about where the images end up at any particular resolution. The markup for all the images in Trams in Zurich are within the same second level section as the text that they are intended to illustrate. So it does conform to that bullet point.


 * I apologise if you feel that my revert was rude, but I'd ask you to consider that I have spent a very long time finding relevant citable text and illustrative images in order to fine tune that article (which was in a right mess when I first came to it), and your bulk removal of images felt just as rude to me.


 * I agree the page is unreadable from the top with a mobile device, but that seems to be the general case for most WP pages and certainly anything with an infobox (for example, compare this with this).


 * I must confess, I did check your version using Screenfly as well as mine at 1920x1080. I agree that at that resolution, your version is somewhat better than mine. My problem is that I think they are both pants compared to my version at 1024x768. Which just takes me full circle back to my reluctance to dumb-down content for presentational reasons. Isn't that just a little contrary to the whole WP ethos?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing this has brought out is a lingering doubt I've had over the tabulation of the companies; not something I originated but I've lived with it. I think now I will try rewriting it into sections. But I need to go offline soon, so I won't be doing it right now; probably over a couple of days. I suggest you go with your suggestion for now; it shouldn't overly conflict with what I'm planning. No problem with you dropping the 'central' image by the way; having two nodal point images is over-egging it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks good - Thanks. I've tweaked one image because it was causing the following level 1 heading to indent at my resolution; shouldn't do any harm at higher resolutions (I hope). -- chris_j_wood (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. With regard to my re-sizing of the ticket m/c image, I did check that it didn't do any harm at mobile and 1920x1080 resolution. And I didn't fix the size with a size= but rather applied a sizing factor with upright=, which is recommended in the image tutorial precisely because it doesn't over-ride the user's settings. To be honest, having looked at the 'many companies' section I still think it needs changing but I'm struggling for inspiration how. If you can see a way, go ahead, otherwise I'm sure I will find a way but it may take a few days for me to come up with it. Looking at the Trams in Melbourne article you refer to on your talk page makes me itch to visit again; last time I was in Melbourne the City Circle had just been introduced, B-class was the most modern tram around, and W-class was everywhere. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Humayun Abdulali
Apologies for reverting your edit on the article on Humayun Abdulali. Rather than cavalier attitude, it is a case of misreading. I thought you had changed the name of the caption of the image of the Eurasian Blackbird in the article. Later I realised you replaced not the caption but the file name with the new name. When I figured this out, I undid my own revert. Again, apologies. -- Rohini (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573494221 your edit] to List of Melbourne bus routes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * |Camberwell [North Balwyn ]
 * JPG|150px|SmartBus liveried Custom Coaches bodied MA] 18.310 on route 907 in Lonsdale St, 2013]

Cable car guy blacklisted?
I asked the guy whose program is doing that, but he was just following orders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyberpower678/spam-exception.js Good luck with the blacklist, I couldn't figure it out.Sammy D III (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Somehow every domain with guy.com at the end is blacklisted. Why, I do not know, but hopefully this will be sorted soon. Liamdavies (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that sort of makes sense, I guess. I had no idea how this could be spam. Well, at least it's only tagging, not actually deleting the link. Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot ignore list ready
I have acted on your statement on ANI and I have went through request pages, as well as the links you gave me and added them to the ignore list here. With that being said, the should no longer tag your pages with a tag or any page where the editors requested whitelisting. The instructions have been ameded in the template for future requests to also request exception on my page. And I have already demonstrated that I do respond quickly. Are you OK for the bot to be turned back on?— cyberpower ChatOnline 16:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello?— cyberpower ChatOnline 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, um, I'm still not sure that all the issues are dealt with, or that my consent is required. If you do turn it back on I suggest it only do a pass once or twice a week and that the situation be monitored closely. I am still uneasy, mainly due to the unbelievably slow movement at the whitelist page; the net was cast far to wide, and the infrastructure simply isn't there to rectify it in a timely manner. Having to wait more than a week or two is unacceptable. The months that many requests have to wait is so unbelievably bad I doubt it's capacity to deal with even a fraction of the 5000 odd affected pages. Today some links got white listed for the first time in over two weeks - it's just not good enough. Liamdavies (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the template documentation as it is worded now, advises users to request whitelisting, and then request a temporary exception on the bot. That way the bot will ignore the links while the whitelist request waits for its approval.— cyberpower ChatOnline 16:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's clear enough, and I doubt its appropriateness compared to other cleanup tags. I share the concerns of others regarding the size of it vs the problem the links cause. Notability and copyvios are grounds for deletion, this is pretty much on the same level as deadlink. I think citation needed is more important than this. But all of this skirts around the main problem, a blacklist that is too wide, if links are lost and the whitelist process takes months to deal with I doubt editors will remember and readd the link. The whitelisting process needs to be much much more robust to be able to cope with the demands that the bot will place on it. But, I will again state, my consent is not required to turn the bot back on. The open AN discussion is a much more pressing concern, I don't think it should be turned on until that is dealt with, but if it is, once or twice a week and monitor the fallout. Liamdavies (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Brunswick tram depot
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melbourne tram route 79, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor railway station (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) 09:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Tram terminus
Hello Liamdavies. I edited the hook for your new article here; feel free to revert if you prefer the former version. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's a little more concise (which is better). I had a look around for a better page to link terminus to, but I think you found the best option. Liamdavies (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Melbourne University tram stop
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of tram and light rail transit systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GVB (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) 09:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

E-class Melbourne tram
I realise that you have created the E-class Melbourne tram and have put a fair bit of work into it since. But from an outsider looking in, there is a fair bit that has become less relevant with the passing of time, or can be consolidated or just needs correcting, for example:


 * expressions of interest aren't issued, they are called for


 * is it relevant that a ...press release was made shortlisting Alstom and Bombardier...  much cleaner to just say ...Alstom and Bombardier were shortlisted...


 * likewise do we need ...it was announced Bombardier was selected for the contract...  much cleaner to just say   ...Bombardier was awarded the contract...


 * two thirds should be two-thirds

I have no intention on getting into a chapter and verse dialogue on every change, on what is fundamentally a sound article that just needs some tweaking. You and I have both been around long enough to know that blanket reversing of one another's posts is counter productive. Mo7838 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a massive problem with your editing style, you continually simply remove sourced information with the summary 'clean up'. When reverted and told to discuss changes you don't, you simply continue at a slower pace.
 * I have no intention on getting into a chapter and verse dialogue on every change this is exactly what you are expected to do when reverted and told to discuss, your unwillingness to do so is incompatible with WP:BRD, a lynch pin of wiki's consensus building procedures.
 * You may say we have been around long enough to be beyond this, but it isn't just me that you get into these spats with, and I have been here much longer, lurking but learning. You would do well to discuss more when called upon, not simply keep doing the same thing without discussion. I would be far far more amiable towards you if you were, as I'm sure others would be. Liamdavies (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We are probably going to have to agree to disagree and move on. In my experience there are two ways to edit, pussy foot around or just get on with it and WP:BEBOLD. Yes you can go through making 50 smaller posts with an explanation justifying each change or as I do, just do it all in one hit..hence the 'clean up' description is appropriate. Employing this 99% of my posts go unchallenged. There are enough people monitoring the articles I post on, that if I was doing something fundamentally wrong, I would have been pulled up my now. Sure I have had the odd spat, but goes with the territory there will always be a few who want to defend the indefensible.


 * I'm not one to go knocking out cites and usually leave an article with more cites than I found it. If a cite is dead I will try and find a replacement, likewise if I think there is a better one e.g. replacing the Reuters cite with one from Bombardier on E-class Melbourne tram.


 * But as I said earlier, sometimes it becomes hard to see the forest through the trees when it comes to an article that you have edited a few times, like A-class Melbourne tram which has had the assembly point in the infobox as 'Victoria Victoria' for at least 6 months despite 15 edits. I have no doubt some of the articles I have edited have similar problems. Mo7838 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying not to be bold, or that your edits are deleterious to the project. But, if you get reverted with a summary WP:BRD, you should in almost all circumstances accept the revert, go to the talk page and discuss your proposed edits. This is the vein that WP:BOLD was written in, and is based on the most basic principle here of WP:CONSENSUS; people (all of us) may loose the forest for the trees, but if you want to make a change it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Liamdavies (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Few examples that you have reinstated by reversing:


 * A-class Melbourne tram
 * line 6: no relevancy that Z-class Melbourne tram received LED displays
 * Subjectively relevant, it was done as the one project really, so is linked but separate. I think it fits within the context of the paragraph, but won't really object to it's removal (I didn't add it, just cited it).


 * B-class Melbourne tram
 * line 15: ...is said to increase the capacity.... a waffly statement, it either did or it didn't
 * So few have been done it's impossible to know either way, all we know is that the claim is it will. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * C-class Melbourne tram
 * line 1: you have decided that it can't be stated that the trams were built in La Rochelle because it isn't cited which is fine, but applying the same logic then it shouldn't be stated that D-class Melbourne trams were built in Dusseldorf as I can't see a cite for this
 * Completely agree, removed from D-class. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * D-class Melbourne tram
 * line 1: countries aren't wikilinked
 * Done. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * line 15: ...upgraded to allow to announce.... grammar errors
 * Done. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * line 21: €300m cost of rectifying Combino fleet is more relevant to that article, would be relevant if it stated the Melbourne cost or even the cost per tram
 * I think it is important as it shows the scale of the faults, within a global context. Melbourne has one of the largest Combino fleets and surely would have been a massive amount of the cost, short of the actual figure the global figure is relevant. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * E-class Melbourne tram
 * line 4: contract option for 100 vehicles not relevant for lead, is unlikely to be taken up and may may well have expired
 * Not done, the time has not expired, and is relevant for scale of the project. I would not be too sure that it won't be taken up. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * line 6: tram procurement program, unnecessary waffle
 * Suggestion that doesn't remove what the program is aimed at delivering, and projects it is undertaking? Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * line 13: A press release was made on 16 October 2009 shortlisting Alstom and Bombardier.....
 * press releases are issued, not made
 * a waffly way of saying Alstom and Bombardier were shortlisted
 * Done, but in a way that ties in with following sentence. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * line 18: ...and the propulsion... should read ...with the propulsion...
 * Done. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * line 20: anti slip → anti-slip
 * Done. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Could sit here all day seeking consensus on every change, but not going to. The crux of the issue is not my WP:BOLD posting, but a reluctance on your part to step back and take an objective look at changes, instead making blanket reversals rather than working to come up with a 'best of both worlds' solution.


 * Yes net result is that I have deleted text, but if you look at what is deleted, it is largely unnecessary padding and duplication. Mo7838 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your changes are so large and numerous (especially by changing cite names and line spacings) that you make reading the diffs almost impossible to see what has actually changed; removing 10% of an article by byte count is massive, and I reverted all of it to discuss it. In future please do not remove line breaks, format cites, and change wording all in one edit, it's just too hard to keep track of as it registers entire paragraphs being deleted. Re changes above I have answered inline. And my stance is understandable, I see huge amounts of an article thrown out, anyone will look at that and go: wait a minute, discuss this first - your reluctance to discuss changes when requested says far more about you than me, this is a collaborative not unilateral project. I would be far less defensive if you had of added new content to any of the articles as well, you have added one or two new cites, but zero new information, and yes I know this comes off as WP:DICKish and WP:OWN. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

D-class Melbourne tram
The D-class already had PISs that display what route the tram is on, and - sometimes - showed the next stop. So to say they were fitted PIS isn't quite right, they more had their PISs upgraded; this is why I chose the wording I did. But the cites don't state that the PIDs were upgraded, just that stop announcements were being added. Is it WP:SYNTH to state that the PIS was upgraded? Liamdavies (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed and actioned. Mo7838 (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * VICSIG should read Vicsig. Home page states: 'Welcome to Vicsig'. All caps only be appropriate if an acronym per WP:CAPSACRS. Mo7838 (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an acronym, Victorian signaling. Is uppercase thoughout the website. Liamdavies (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Homepage lists it as Vicsig 6 times, VICSIG zero. Yes Vicsig presumably is an acronym for Victorian signaling, although can't see it mentioned on the site. Mo7838 (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The homepage uses VICSIG twice, in the page title and footer, as well as on every other page. Im not going to war it, but it should be all caps. Why did you delink organisations in cites? Liamdavies (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed case can be made either way, time to move on. Mo7838 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems incredibly arrogant to say 'time to move on' after changing a longstanding capitalisation twice and conceding that a 'case can be made either way'. Given that it should be changed back, and you should 'move on'; changes have been reverted - 'move on'. Liamdavies (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is debatable whether it should be Vicsig, vicsig or VICSIG but quite frankly I am not bothered either way. Your call as to the format. End result is that most of the changes I proposed, you have accepted, just had to go the long way round to get there. You don't like my editing style, no problem wiki is a democracy. Hopefully our paths won't cross too often in the future. Mo7838 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, wiki is not a democracy. It is a collaborative project where editors discuss disagreements to form a consensus; it is for this reason that I dislike your editing style. I find it overly combative, and dislike the way it makes me instantly defensive, and in turn combative myself. I apologise for my dickish behaviour, but also wish for you take some responsibility. When asked to discuss an edit, that is what should be done straight off, not after a small edit war. I find it far too confrontational, unnecessary, and unproductive. I also find your whole tone unpleasant, whether you wish to or not, you do not come of as collaborative. You have changes you wish to make, end of story, it is only begrudgingly that you compromise on them (these are simply my feelings based on internet experience, and probably have no bearing in reality). I have disagreements with other editors, like we all do, but never to the same tit for tat degree as with you; it is usually dealt with on talk pages, not passive aggressive edit summaries (well mostly, none of us are perfect). Having said that, I do still assume good faith, and believe you to be here to build the project, I just don't think we play well together. I will endeavour to stay out of your line of editing. But may from time to time add some interesting links I find to talk pages I know you edit. I'll also happily continue to take photographs for all pages, and add them as I see fit. If you wish a photo for an article, feel free to ask me, I'll see what I can do. Liamdavies (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok so we don't like one anothers editing styles. Let's just deal with and stop bitching about it. For the record I have no problem with you editing pages I have contributed to. I don't agree with all of your changes and vice versa but in the interest of harmony, I am quite happy to compromise and have done so in these articles. Mo7838 (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D-class Melbourne tram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (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) 09:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Public Transport Victoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KDR (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) 09:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Domain Interchange
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot has been uodated
Spambot has received updates. It's no longer an aggressive bot. The bot tags both the talk page and the main page. You can hide the tag on the main page by setting the invisible parameter to true. The tag will only become a category and the banner is suppressed. The bot won't ever change that. It explains that on the talk page. The only time the bot wars is to replace the tag, because it SHOULD be there to place it in a category.— cyber power Limited Access [[User talk:C678|Merry Christmas]] 12:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "The only time the bot wars is to replace the tag, because it SHOULD be there to place it in a category." this means it will still war, that is unacceptable, if there is an active tag on the talk page that is sufficient, there is no consensus to have a bot war a tag - hidden or not - onto the page, the discussion was leaning towards tagging only the talk page. Liamdavies (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no tag on the talk page. Just a section saying there is an issue.  It doesn't place a category on the talk page.  Any user can suppress the tag by setting the parameter.  And the discussion wasn't leaning anywhere.  It appears to have died as no consensus.— cyber power Limited Access [[User talk:C678|Merry Christmas]] 12:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It didn't die from lack of consensus, it settled due to lack of bot activity. The bot should tag the talk page, and not war the tags removal from the article page. Liamdavies (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)