User talk:Sibaz

Welcome, ! Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions! You might like to check out our tutorial, a resource created especially for new users like yourself. You also may want to introduce yourself to the community at the new user log. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or at our questions forum. I hope very much you enjoy being here with us, and I wish you luck with your contributions. - zappa.jake at

Marlow/Maidenhead Branch Line
It seems to be standard to name a branch line after it's terminus, but this is up for debate. What you certainly should not do is move articles by blanking old ones, which I think is what you have done? - Feebtlas 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also compare Google searches for "marlow branch line" (92 results) vs "Maidenhead Branch Line" (4 results, and all Marlow - Maidenhead Branch Line or similar). - Feebtlas 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to the message on my talk page - while I'm not sure if it is set in stone anywhere (little on Wikipedia is), but it does seem to be convention to name lines after their current route rather than what they would have been originally (example Chiltern Main Line instead of GC/GWR joint line, Wycombe Railway, and the other lines that have formed it). It also appears to be convention to name branch lines either after their non main line terminus, or for example Maidenhead - Marlow branch line. I would support either Marlow or Maidenhead - Marlow but I don't find just Maidenhead to be particularily descriptive, and as in the Google search above you can see it's a term that is little used, if at all. I am watching your talk page so there is no need to reply on mine if you dont wish to. - Feebtlas 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see your point regarding 'Maidenhead Branch Line' vs 'Maidenhead - Marlow branch line', you're far more knowledgable about trains generally, so I'll take your word for it if that is the naming convention. It is a long term aim of a number of people to re-instate the Bourne End to Wycombe part of the line, which will complicate things name wise, but it may never happen.  Locally its obviously important to know its the Maidenhead line, not the High Wycombe line (both run through the Wycombe district), but most rail users will know that already.  I think 'Maidenhead - Marlow branch line' is the most informative name.  - 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, I have lived in the area all my life (and for 8 years in Cores End) and I've never known it as being called the Maidenhead branch. - Feebtlas 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've lived in Well End, Marlow, Penn, Bourne End and now Cores End and I've heard it called the Marlow, Maidenehead, Bourne End, Cookham and 'The old High Wycombe' Branch line. I don't think what something is commonly known in any particular sphere is necessarily helpful.  For those that live nearer Maidenhead it is different for those that live near Marlow, and again for those at Wycombe.  I just think you need to decide on a convention for things and stick to it.  Either name it by both ends of its run, by the more imporetant station, or name according to the station nearest to the community likely to read your name.  The point is, it goes from Maidenhead to Marlow some of the time, from Maidenhead to Bourne End some of the time and from Bourne End to Marlow some of the time.  I don't think there is a right answer.  00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beaconsfield Conservative Association


The article Beaconsfield Conservative Association has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The article says that it is the Largest Association in the UK Conservative party but dosn't have any citations to prove this. Also, where there should be numbers of members there is nothing. I didn't CSD it for A7 because I thought somebody would be able to help save this article. I will also add a nofootnotes tag.

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 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 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. Oddbodz (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm soon  going  to  propose the above article for deletion. If you  can, please consider also  consider addressing  the issues with  your creations at Scoundrel and Sea Lord (novel). All Wikipedia articles must have reliable sources, otherwise they  will  be proposed for deletion after allowing  you  a reasonable time to  provide sources for your information. If you  need any help in  understanding  these policies, please do  not  hesitate to  ask  me on  my  talk  page.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scoundrel


The article Scoundrel has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no sources, notability not shown

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 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 will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. serioushat 05:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there!
You wrote on another user's talk "What with Mr T trying to deny that Pakistan has funded or supported militants in Indian Kashmir (something everyone with a brain, and an ability to follow the news, knows must be true)" - may I implore you to clarify that statement because right now I think you've mistaken which side of the argument I am on. You might find this interesting. I put it there. Please clarify what were you trying to say about me. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC) and again at 05:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:KB UK Dvorak.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KB UK Dvorak.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)