Anothersignalman

Cleanup

'Helpme' pages removed - see 'history'

‏الإصدار 7.13.0 MhmmedAlshehri (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links

For pages like this you can make the links nicer and easier to understand by doing this:

* [http://www.pjv101.net/cd/pages/c062m.htm nice name]

* [http://www.pjv101.net/cd/pages/c328m.htm another nice name]

* [http://www.steamrail.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=114 Steamrail Victoria Forums - thread title]

gives:

• nice name
• another nice name
• Steamrail Victoria Forums - thread title

Wongm (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this?

The W article

I'll start on the MT and E articles.

If you tack ~~~~ onto the end of your posts it adds your name, time, and date.

An example link would be Peter J Vincent: AW - First Class Sitting Car Wongm (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New pages

Glad to see your contribtions on railway history. Your E carriage article got me fired up - we cannot give NSW a free kick, as Robert Lee has done! Robert is NQR about the design of the E cars (not to detract from his valuable book). Carriage design in NSW was nothing like as advanced as in Victoria, and the Pullmans were only used for sleepers. I hope to add something of the background of the E carriages and rollingstock design. Might I suggest you research the humble Z van? They were so characteristic of the VR over such a long time - right back into the mid 19th Century, and still with us into the 1970's. I cold help you out with a few historical photographs. Mav62 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My next pages that I want to do, include a page on the BCPL cars (linked to the MT car page), an APL/BPL page, and something on guard's vans. Any preference?

Steamtostay (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting on the Guard's van page, I have a few questions. This is my main source. So, which should I include in the article? I was going to start with the plan 6-wheel Z-van and it's variations (D, ZL, ZP, etc.). Should we have separate pages for these, and, say, the 'power vans' (PCJ, etc.,) or the purely passenger vans (C, etc.)?

finished, Linky. It only covers the Z vans and their alternatives, such as DH, H, ZZ, ZL, D, etc. Opinions?

I've never been much of a fan myself in creating articles on subjects where there is a heap of info up on the net already. It is one thing to say that, when not everyone can get their hands on books covering other less covered subjects. However, everyone else is free to do what they want to do, as long as you aren't doing a copy and paste of stuff from elsewhere.

The pages you have done are a bit 'gunzel heavy' as well - more of the numbers and dates than descriptions of the interior and what they look like and stuff like that. I did a bit of work on the N / Z / S set pages a while back - you might get some ideas there.

Finally - some photos would be nice. Most of the older stuff I don't have photos of myself, and you can't just upload any old photos you find on the net - you need to get permission. Wongm (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, about the info being available elsewhere. However, Wikipedia is more likely to show up on a Google than PJV's site, and in some cases I've merged info from there, and other sites, into one page. This makes it easier for the junior researcher, like myself, and it was one of the main problems I faced about five years ago when I started my 'HO scale Rollingstock Shopping List". Also, a lot of the other sites are out-of-date; for example, V/LineCars reports September 2007 as the most recent update.

The Gunzel Heavy thing, well, there's not much I can do about that. I don't have ANY of my own photos (because my father doesn't like me going out Gunzelling alone!), and like you said, I can't copy from elsewhere. Plus, believe it or not, I've only once been on a v/line train - and that was a sprinter from Geelong to Melb in July, 2001

BTW, I've finished the fifth page: Power Vans

Steamtostay (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be doing more about the vans, so should the CS or DS vans from the Spirit of Progress, be on the existing 'S' page, or a new page? What about Murray or Norman?

Steamtostay (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean about PVJ's site - even Googleing obscure things and it doesn't pop up. The CS and other non sitting cars were part of the original Spirit consist - might as well cover it there, as with the DS. A page like Victorian Railways dining cars might be an idea for a 'top down' view of all the different types of cars, and on to the 1980s snack bars that came later. The 'New Deal' is a topic that isn't really covered online - a Newsrail mag a while back covered it. One of the Newsrail mags I have laying about has a history of railway catering for the other suggestion I just made. Added photos and links to the power van page too. Wongm (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I might try to do the dining cars thing, but it'll take a while, because I'm at school tomorrow and thursday (I've had the last four days off). I'd have only small blurbs about Murray, the BRS's, the BG's and so on, with 'main article' links going to their respective parts of other pages.

I think we need, now, to define the difference between the S cars and the SoP articles, as well as defining the difference between the N sets article and the Victorian Railways New Deal article when we make that. I'd also ask someone else to do the article on the 'New Deal', because I don't know enough about it.

Finally, I noticed, your editing of the PCO, PCJ part of the power van article has a few errors. Remember that PCO 1 and 3 were turned into PCJ's, so only PCO 2 and PCO 4 are left. As the article reads now, PCO 4 disappears altogether, while PCJ491 (PCO 1) splits it's identity between VLP and GSR. Could you clarify this?

...PCO 1 was refurbished and re-entered service with Great Southern Railway in 2007.

PCO 1 is in plain grey...

Should these read PCO 4? Steamtostay (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct about PCO 4 [smacks head]. I though I had already started scattering red New Deal (Victoria) about, but I guess I haven't. The xxx type carriage pages are about the train, SoP is about the train that used the S cars (and the Z stock as well later on), New Deal mentions the N cars were part of it. The non sitting SOP cars did get the S classification in the 1980s, so are S type carriage. Wongm (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So we need to add Murray, CS, DS, and Norman to the S type carriage article. Could I get you to do the 'New Deal' article? Do you need any new rollingstock pages in order to create it? As for the Dining car article, I just spent about an hour on PJV's site, and there is no class, no individual page, nothing! They are spread around into all the other pages. How about, I start the article with info on dining cars in general, and then we can allocate research between us to add.

BTW, I've changed the Trailer page again, check the MTH and 1300 headings. Also, take a look at the A Class in this photo!

Steamtostay (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tank wagons

The 'Brief History' book has 2 pages in the front with a general history of tank wagons - I might tackle a article on that soon. Wongm (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll finish the Bogie Guard Vans thing, and then maybe do the open wagons, the G and I series in general.

Steamtostay (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, my original idea for this article was for it to focus on oil wagons in particular, with chlorine/alcohol/ammonia/tar/gas/etc. in Miscellaneous and the DW/WT's in Way and Works. Your thoughts?

That would leave the fuel oil trucks, LFT, OT, TW, VTBA, VTOA, VTQA and VTQZ wagons. Do you plan to include the VKKF Flat Wagon? Finally, PJV puts the Weedex into this group - I think that should be in W&W instead, what about you?

Steamtostay (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anothersignalman, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Anothersignalman! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anothersignalman. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

And another one

Hello, Anothersignalman. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

The Teahouse Turns One!

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

	Teahouse First Birthday Badge
	Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victorian Railways fixed wheel passenger carriages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hampton (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) 08:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Victorian Railways bogie guards vans may have broken the syntax by modifying 16 "<>"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 my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Gooseneck couplers

Hi signalman
You mentioned gooseneck-type couplers in large bogie boxvan for car parts. Are these couplers still in use? Would it be possible to get a dimensioned drawing? What particularly interests me is the vertical offset between the coupler head and the shank.
Regards, Peter Horn User talk 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure where to look. You could try contacting the ARHS as a starting point.

Most of the work I've been doing here is mainly a merge of everything already online (and solving conflicting reports), because I was sick of having to look in four or five different places every time. Anothersignalman (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I had to go through ARHS to find ARHS. So now I'll find (a) website(s) and hopefully email addresses. Thanks. Peter Horn User talk 19:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 19:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Eureka: Contact us Peter Horn User talk 19:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victorian Railways K class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Pacific. 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) 10:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victorian Railways bogie guards vans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Zorro. 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) 09:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited V&SAR Overland Carriages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Coast Railway. 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) 09:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the N type carriage page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anothersignalman. 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)

Train table colors

You can take a look at what I did here. I think that's much easier to read even though I didn't manage to stack it horizontally. Huon (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Table looks pretty good, I'll see what people think of it. Anothersignalman (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Asked a few colourblind people (limited sample), and their response was that the only issue with the table style was blue text on blue background.

Incidentally, is there a way to have some fields in the table automatically calculated? For example, the column "capacity" is based on manually calculating the total number of seats across all carriages in that row, but if it could be done automatically that would be quite useful. Anothersignalman (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Railway article details & sources

That said, I'd still argue that this level of detail, without any reliable published sources (and no, a closed Facebook group is not a reliable published source), is excessive - I appreciate that you have invested a huge amount of effort in gathering that information, but I'm not sure Wikipedia is an appropriate venue for such intricate details as the numbers of specific carriages or timetables. If you're looking for an off-Wikipedia site to host such content, Wikia may be worth a look. Huon (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wikia was for fiction, but if I can find some non-fiction pages in there I'll recommend shifting the content across as part of the planned [Vicsig] rebuild. What data would you leave in the pages, and what would you move to the Wikia page, using Victorian Railways S type carriage? That's probably the most complete out of all the articles I've written. If you're in the mood, could you perhaps create an example at User:Huon/Victorian Railways S type carriage, or User:Anothersignalman/Victorian Railways S type carriage, with what should be left here? Anothersignalman (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been reading up on the Wikipedia definition of "reliable published sources". Following links in the article leads to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that the requirement for a source to qualify is that it must be "made available to the public in some form".

• 1. Published - I suppose the core of the problem is how to define "the public" - I've been treating it as 'the vast majority of people likely to visit the (section of the) article', most of whom would have access to the facebook groups already or who can gain access, just like a public library requiring membership (including proof of ID) to borrow books. That's probably different to a non-enthusiast perspective, where "the public" would mean everybody with an internet connection - to use the library analogy, anybody with the means and time to travel to the relevant library and obtain the document/s. So I'd argue that at least some content on forums and facebook threads should meet the definition of "published", depending on the audience.
• 2. Reliability - Within those sites (railpage, facebook etc), I've been careful a) link to the individual posts, not threads or sites in general, that are the relevant sources, and b) to only cite reliable resources, which I judge from my own experience going back to September 2005. The posts at the end of the URLs are by sources who have proven to be correct (within the context of rolling stock allocations in Victoria) many times over, and that makes them reliable. I suppose I could add a note in the References section along the lines of, "posts by Person 1, Person 2 & Person 3 are considered reliable in this context", for example.

Anothersignalman (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think you misunderstand Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. In this context, "published" means something that's gone through some kind of fact-checking process (e.g. books are proofread by the publisher, journal articles get peer reviewed, corporate webpages and press releases must be approved by that company's PR department). On the other hand, personal websites, blogs, and social-media posts do not have to go through this rigorous process, and thus anybody and post anything to the Internet and make it appear legitimate; however, they cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia (and for good reason). This policy has nothing to do with the trustworthiness of the individual poster, so arguing that so and so is "reliable" is moot. Please stop adding these types of citations. Thanks! – voidxor 21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think publishers proofread books, beyond a quick spell-check? Journal articles are only peer reviewed in reputable journals, but there are probably hundreds of journals that publish anything if you pay them, and web pages / press releases are often what the source wants you to think, not what actually happened. Agree that websites, blogs, forums and posts don't naturally go through scrutiny, but it is possible to cross-reference them or to prove that people are who they say they are, which should be able to turn an otherwise disallowed source into a permitted one. The policy page states that:

   "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Since the people I've mentioned have all had their work published elsewhere (Newsrail etc), they should be cleared. It would help if I could produce a list of those people, but not sure where to stick it.

Incidentally, re Huon's comment above, the talk page for WP:IRS clearly says:

   "Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?
       No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy."

That means a closed group/forum is perfectly acceptable, if I manage to overcome the issue re it being facebook. Anothersignalman (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just found this bit:

   Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos.

That goes against what you said above re press releases being reliable/verified sources.

Anothersignalman (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

While not likely to be applicable here, given the non-controversial nature of the material, but something published by an individual or organisation is subject to the laws of defamation. Hence the publisher will go through a degree of fact checking before publishing. Unlike say an anonymous post on social media where the law is a bit grey.

While enthusiast magazines like Newsrail do rely on contributions from various sources some of whom the editor does not personally know, to protect its reputation, he is likely to run it by someone knowledgeable to check for reasonableness, rather than publish carte blanche and then have to publish a retraction. Beachbo (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Convert long tons, cwt, qtr

I noticed there is a {{convert}} error at Harris (train). It can be seen by searching for "convert:" (with the colon). Mouse over the message to see more detail, or click edit and preview to see a much more prominent message.

I think the following is what is wanted, but it would be better if you were to confirm this and make the edit. There is no need to use fractional tons because convert has been able to do the following for a couple of years. Using LT gives the name in full, while lt gives an abbreviation. In the first example, it is necessary to include "|0|Lcwt"—convert gives a junk result without it.

• {{convert|46|LT|0|Lcwt|6|qtr|t|2|abbr=on}} → 46 long tons 0 cwt 6 qtr (46.81 t)
• {{convert|30|LT|16|Lcwt|2|qtr|t|2|abbr=on}} → 30 long tons 16 cwt 2 qtr (31.32 t)
• {{convert|32|LT|6|Lcwt|t|2|abbr=on}} → 32 long tons 6 cwt (32.82 t)
• {{convert|37|LT|8|Lcwt|t|2|abbr=on}} → 37 long tons 8 cwt (38.00 t)
• {{convert|46|lt|0|Lcwt|6|qtr|t|2|abbr=on}} → 46 LT 0 cwt 6 qtr (46.81 t)
• {{convert|30|lt|16|Lcwt|2|qtr|t|2|abbr=on}} → 30 LT 16 cwt 2 qtr (31.32 t)
• {{convert|32|lt|6|Lcwt|t|2|abbr=on}} → 32 LT 6 cwt (32.82 t)
• {{convert|37|lt|8|Lcwt|t|2|abbr=on}} → 37 LT 8 cwt (38.00 t)

Please check any other similar articles you may have edited. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been wondering how to code that for a while now. Will fix. Anothersignalman (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Finished, I think. Have I missed anything? Anothersignalman (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Cite validity

R type carriage

Many thanks for your edits. Unfortunately some of it is using posts on the Railpage forum as cites. Irrespective of a personal opinion as to the reliability of an individual poster, forum discussions are not considered reliable as described at WP:SELFPUBLISH. Sorry if I am coming across as a bit of a bureaucrat, but if something is only supported by an invalid cite, an editor may come along in the future and delete. Better to write an article with what can be backed up by reliable sources. Beachbo (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Guessing you're referring to my note on the talk page of the R type carriage page? Until 2041 there won't be any official documentation available, so in the meantime the only knowledgeable sources are Daryl Gregory (cited in some other articles), the Newsrail 1986 and Comeng Vol.4 books (which I need to re-hire copies of, so that I can add the inline citations), and recollections from the individuals involved in the development of the projects. Kuldalai is one of two or three "established experts" I've been able to find who were involved at the time, and he chose to publish information on Railpage (and other people choose to publish on Facebook). I have followed up those comments with personal emails to the people involved, and discussed in person, but I'm not sure how to reference those discussions since they can't be replicated by a random person and even the target audience for the article would struggle. As a temporary solution (until I can get copies of the printed sources) I can live with reversing deletions of the content, daily if necessary. Anothersignalman (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

DERM page

That's the wrong way to go about it! WP:BURDEN requires the uploader (that'd be you) to provide reliable sources. If you can't do that (and it sounds like you can't), then anybody is welcome to remove come along and remove the content. I'm sure that's what Beachbo is referring to, and also what I'm struggling with on Diesel Electric railmotor (VR). Please read the policies that we are linking you to before continuing to revert. For example, I removed some original research, and linked to our original-research policy in my edit summary, then you reverted with no explanation and without addressing my concern. It's seems that you didn't bother to read the policy. – voidxor 20:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Re references and reliable sources in general, I'll address that in the other thread to keep everything together. Going to bed now, will look at it again when I next have a chance.

Re DERM upgrades, I added a reference to one of the many pages with photos of the upgraded vehicles. The link is to Mark Bau's site, which is one of a handful of recognised reliable sources in the railway community, at least when it comes to provision of photographs, such as of 55RM and 61RM post-upgrade. [1] refer to the photo captioned "RM 55 and 61 were extensively rebuilt in 1978, these photos show RM 55 in its rebuilt state." Other sources disagree with the "1978" bit (plus or minus a year, but still late 1970's), but the photo clearly shows the aesthetic changes.

Fair enough re the bent frame thing, I need to recheck that.

Re the DERM rebuilds, I've found other written sources:

• Bray, Vincent & Gregory, Preserved Rolling Stock of Victoria, 2013, ISBN 978-0-9806806-4-5, p.62 - "RM 55 was rebuilt and lengthened 11/1979." & "RM 61 was rebuilt and lengthened 1978".
• DERMPAV site - 55RM: "In 1978 the car had a major overhaul with engine relocation and seating rearrangement." & 61RM "In 1978 the car had a major overhaul with engine relocation and seating rearrangement." This page is already referenced on the DERM article.
• Peter Vincent's website, transcripts from official records, sources referenced

And photo sources, showing external differences between the normal DERMs and upgraded units:

• VicSig 55RM entry
• VicSig 61RM entry
• victorianrailways.net, written by Mark Bau - the original one I linked to
• Peter Vincent's website - he's also one of the authors above
• Norm Bray's flickr account - he's also one of the authors above
• Rob O'Reagan's website

Are any of those sources good enough? Why or why not?

I also noticed that you removed my link to the facebook thread where the Yarra Valley Railway claims that they will acquire 55RM ex South Gippsland Railway. It's an official statement from the YVR, so why is it not considered reliable? You can't say it's because you don't know whether that's a real page or not - it's fairly clear if you look at any of the other posts there. Since the vehicle is owned by Victrack and allocated to the Newport museum, then suballocated to SGR, there's no other way they could get permission to transfer it, and no reason to think they're lying. Anothersignalman (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As WP:SPS says, and as I and others have been repeating for awhile now, self-published sources are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. I'm really not sure why this is so difficult, but I'll try to answer anyway:

• Pretty much anything with an ISBN is formally published, and thus reliable.
• Organization websites (e.g. DERMPAV, VICSIG) are put together by a group, so I'd be inclined to say that they are okay as well (though it's a bit of a gray area, so others may disagree).
• Personal websites (e.g. pjv101.net, victorianrailways.net, robx1.net) are self published, and therefore not reliable. Yes, there is an obscure policy exception for individuals who are very important within their field—like research professors who are authorities in their subject area—but in general I'd just avoid using personal websites altogether. And no, railfans who are well regarded in the railfan community do not meet this requirement.
• Social media (e.g. Flickr, Facebook, Twitter) is also self published, and thus not reliable.

Hope this helps. – voidxor 05:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Its difficult because the rules seem arbitrary, both in writing and in application. For example, I checked your link to the ISBN page. There's nothing magical about having an ISBN attached to your book, all it means is that you had $42 (now $44) plus enough to print a few copies at the local library or post office. They offer immediate supply of the codes, which means they can't proofread anything or even check that you are who you say you are.

Can you provide any examples of experts who do meet the self-publication requirement? The text on WP:SPS looks to me like it was written explicitly to allow content from posts by people like Vincent, Bray, Gregory, and to a lesser extent O'Reagan, Bau etc., because they are the leading (read: only) experts in the field of Victorian Railways rolling stock history. (Also, you don't get to claim that one part of the rules is "obscure". It's all relevant.) What disqualifies "railfans who are well regarded in the railfan community"? For reference, the quote from the page:

    Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

I also don't see why it matters where something is published, only who does the publishing and whether they can be confirmed as an accurate source of information. There's a lot of irrelevant stuff on social media, but serious discussions do happen there on a daily basis; and often smaller organisations find it easier to post details on facebook, where a post can be assembled in perhaps half an hour, rather than on a website which requires intricate coding. Did you actually check the YVR link? Or are you just looking at the "facebook.com" bit and assuming it's unworthy? Anothersignalman (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion should probably take place here:

• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Reliability of social media sources representing companies.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for articles on railway vehicles in Victoria, Australia.

Anothersignalman (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that regardless of an editor's opinion on the level of expertise of a poster, that forum discussions are generally not accepted as reliable. Otherwise I could go set up an account on the Raipage forum as John Dunn (the author of the Comeng book), wax lyrical for a while, and then quote it here as a cite. Hence I have removed the hidden Railpage cites from the R type carriage article, as they are not compliant now and short of a change in policy, won't be in the future. Beachbo (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Re Railpage, could you do that consistently for over ten years, across multiple forums with the same username and writing style, without being caught? Also, John Dunn passed away in 2012, so I think you'd struggle in that case. My point is that generic rules only make sense to a point, and some allowance has to be made for common sense within the context. Anothersignalman (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

As stated below, it is far better to have an article, even if less detailed, that can be backed up by compliant sources. Otherwise someone may come along and deem that the article is largely uncited and put it up for deletion. Beachbo (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you object to my restoring the forum posts after I've properly added inline citations from the acceptable secondary sources? Anothersignalman (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

And in reality some of these articles are hard to read, being bogged down with technical details like endless list of carriage numbers, when a higher level overview would be more appropriate. South Australian Railways steel carriage stock being an example, with listing every change in configuration, reclassification, repaint etc making it clunky. Beachbo (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In the case of the SAR Steel cars, they've had a far more complex history than most types, relative to fleet size, so it's somewhat necessary. I can try to rewrite to make it less "clunky", but honestly that's really just my writing style. The content can't be changed, but my personal gold standard is generally something like the Victorian Railways E type carriage page. I just don't have enough information to pad out the SAR steel cars article. I expect that'll change in the next year or so, as more models are being produced and when reviewed they are usually accompanied by class histories. Anothersignalman (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Model railway sections

As for the model railway section, I'll clean it up a bit before I restore it, but I think it is important information relevant to the vehicles. After all, the only people with any interest in the page will be historians or enthusiasts, so probably half the target audience for the page will be interested in the model railway aspects (and Trainz/etc simulators, but I don't know enough about those). I have considered writing a new page, say, Models of Victorian Railways Locomotives and Rolling Stock, with every current page having a link to that list, but it seems rather clunky. What do you think? Anothersignalman (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that such an article would pass the general notability guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. As Huon said in the other thread, Wikia might better suit your needs as a railfan trying to track details that may be considered small potatoes on Wikipedia. – voidxor 00:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The general notability guideline you linked to says, at the top, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There's about fifty years' worth of articles and reviews for the products in question which I can reference, plus primary sources (or via wayback machine) from the manufacturers listing the products. For now I'll do my own version of the page, and if necessary later on the code can be transplanted to the redlink above. Anothersignalman (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles and reviews would likely make great sources, so long as they aren't self published (e.g. on a personal website or blog). Primary sources are less preferable, but often still suitable. I think creating a candidate article in your own user space is an excellent idea. You can submit it at articles for creation (AfC) when you think it's ready to become an article, and the good folks at AfC will give you feedback on whether the subject matter is notable, and whether your sources can be considered reliable. – voidxor 05:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Noted and appreciated, thanks :) Anothersignalman (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This section may help. While of some interest to a small percentage of the readership, we need to remember that we are trying to inform the wider audience. While a high level review maybe ok, listing every permutation is a bit over the top, and listing prices fails catalogue policy and could be interpreted as promotional. In time the price will also become irrelevant, e.g. that something cost $100 in 1987 is of little relevance now. But agree with Voidxor's post above that probably not required at all. Beachbo (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Without having actually done a poll on the topic, I expect that around half the visitors to each of the rollingstock articles would be interested. What's the threshold? Fair enough re pricing, I suppose. Anothersignalman (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no threshold because readership is not how we gauge notability. I think Beachbo's point was just that it might not be as notable as you think. – voidxor 04:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Pile of drafts that could be rescued

Hi Anothersignalman

There is a pile of drafts that were started, but never included a lede sentence or a reference. Are you in a position to turn these into stubs so that they can again become articles?

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't know that much about South Australian Railways stock. Best bet is to forward to Comrails, until more references are found (and especially if those references conflict with the data on Comrails). My work on the Victorian pages is really just taking weighted averages of about ten-fifteen sources and trying to make sense of them all. If you have concerns re formatting I can help with the basic outline. Anothersignalman (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Article blanking...

You recently moved and created an article Victorian Railways tank wagons which you yourself blanked subsequently.May you clarify on the issue?temporarilyarily reverted your blanking.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Working on a few different projects, clicked the wrong redlink. I'll get around to writing that page eventually but for now it's not supposed to exist - that content belongs on the National Rail NR class page.

Anothersignalman (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Help me!

Accidentally created this page too early - I'll get around to it eventually but for now I don't have time to write it. Victorian Railways tank wagons Can someone please delete?

Anothersignalman (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

OK! I'll tag the page with correct ASD criterion.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks :) One day I'll get around to it. Anothersignalman (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Victorian Railways tank wagons

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Victorian Railways tank wagons, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It covers a topic on which we already have an article - National Rail NR class. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at National Rail NR class, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Winged Blades ^Godric 16:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Undesirable cut/paste page move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give NR class a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into National Rail NR class. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realise there was a formal process. Aside from the National Rail NR class ex NR class transfer, others I've done which need to have the history transferred:

• Victorian Railways E type carriage ex E type carriage
• Victorian Railways Short W type carriage and Victorian Railways Long W type carriage split from W type carriage
• Victorian Railways S type carriage ex S type carriage
• Victorian Railways Z type carriage ex Z type carriage
• Victorian Railways PL type carriage ex PL type carriage ex PL type cars
• Victorian Railways V type carriage ex V type carriage (content was temporarily on Victorian Railways wooden bogie passenger carriages)
• V/Line H type carriage ex H type carriage
• VicRail N type carriage ex N type carriage
• VicRail R type carriage ex R type carriage

I have added this list to the Requests page.

Anothersignalman (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Dl2000, just wanted to say thanks for putting me on to the automatic move function. Makes life a lot easier :) Anothersignalman (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC):::

No problem, good that this helped. Also, if you encounter a technical problem moving an article, the WP:RM process can help. Dl2000 (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with the W type carriage disambiguation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Facebook

I see this has been discussed several times here on your talk but perhaps it is worth revisiting again. FB in this context is especially is not a RS. This comes from photos, closed Facebook groups, etc...however this is the equivalent of WP:OR as it is not a published source with any editorial oversight. If information is not available in an RS, it is not appropriate for inclusion in the article. Content is also required to be verifiable. Facebook posts, especially being in a closed group is not verifiable and even if it were open, would still not be verifiable in this context. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to discuss this here or on your talk page? Anothersignalman (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is preferred, Anothersignalman. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

OK then. I'll start with partial reversal of some of the sourcing on some of the pages - for example on the page Victorian Railways S type carriage you deleted three references. One (the first) we can discuss, but the lower two are absolutely official statement from the company (Powerline) concerned and therefore, as per Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_65#Reliability_of_social_media_sources_representing_companies, and you should be able to see them. Anothersignalman (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Anothersignalman I'm not going to parse every single one of the hundreds of poorly sourced FB references in these articles. The two you're talking about are not accessible and were PHOTOS with no verification of the account they came from. Facebook as you are using it is not a reliable source. This seems like it needs to be handled elsewhere, with more eyes and where a consensus can actually be reached rather than between you and I. I'd recommend creating an RfC or taking it to DRN or something equivalent where more people who are interested in the subject can discuss, I would strongly recommend against re-adding them as this is disputed for verifiability and reliability.

I'll follow up the RfC/DRN options. In meantime, the way you've written that it seems like Facebook could be a reliable source in a particular context? Anothersignalman (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the discussion above, that was in the context of an official page - this is a group and that discussion in no way applies.

Some of each. Vicsig/VRE I can see your point, but the Powerline Models items not so much. I'll find the original posts that included those images and swap out the URLs to fix the reliability problem there. Anothersignalman (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the idea of a Facebook page being reliably associated is not the same as an individual person/employee/subject matter expert - period.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If, as has already been established, Company X makes a page on Facebook and uses it in an official capacity, then how is that any different to, say, Expert Y using his or her Facebook account in an official capacity? The argument depends on that person being pre-ordained as an expert, but for this part of the discussion let's assume that's covered. Anothersignalman (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll put the RfC on the VRLocos template talk page Template talk:Locomotives and rolling stock of the Victorian Railways, predecessors and successors, because the referencing issues apply to most of the pages in that table. It also makes it easier for me to link to it in the future. Anothersignalman (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you guys not have an Australian equivalent of Modern Railways - a reliable and independent magazine which is sufficiently technically orientated, with regular co-operation and assistance from the railway companies involved, that it can be used to source the required claims without resorting to a company Facebook page ? Nick (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There's Newsrail (which only covers Victoria - I think the rest of the country has nothing!) but the detail can be spread over literally hundreds of back-issues with no indexing system, so everything has to be found manually; and it isn't supported by any of the railway companies as far as I know. Additionally because it is only published monthly (with a backlog of a few months) some content could be out of date by time of publication. That means some of the detail could be forgotten by the time Newsrail gets around to publishing it. Where I've linked to facebook comments, it will either be from people like Daryl Gregory (noted Victorian Railways historian), Brett Leslie (in charge of fleet management at V/Line), or occasionally random enthusiast photos from the field with a time stamp to prove accuracy. Anothersignalman (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC posted here: Template_talk:Locomotives_and_rolling_stock_of_the_Victorian_Railways,_predecessors_and_successors#Reliability_of_sources_in_rolling_stock_articles_.28social_media_etc.29

Nomination for deletion of Template:Locomotives and rolling stock of privately-owned railways in Victoria, Australia

Template:Locomotives and rolling stock of privately-owned railways in Victoria, Australia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. Anothersignalman (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Anothersignalman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anothersignalman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anothersignalman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Correcting post

Thank you for reverting my post on Metro Trains. I am from Sydney and not Melbourne but over the past week or so I have reverting a large number of potential vandalism edits mainly in Victoria but also some in New South Wales and Queensland from User talk:122.110.221.80, User talk:211.27.86.17 and one now blocked User talk:122.108.96.93 They are mainly very minor changes such as changing the Infobox style or to the station name. Hence I mistook the Metro Trains edit as one of those. My apologies. I have been surprised that no one in Melbourne has picked up any of these.Fleet Lists (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I just found that I should have reverted the second update and NOT the first one. That second post deleted the Type from Hitachi in the Former fleet section and was missing again. I have fixed that.Fleet Lists (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I do what I can, when I can, but there have been times when I've been too busy to think about it for months on end. When I do get a chance, I'll normally focus on one of the wagon pages. Eventually I plan to fill in all the blank sections, including both the red pages that still need to be assembled. More often than not I'm battling bots and/or people who don't consider sites like pjv101.net to be reliable even though the content is from a respected, published author and one of maybe four or five leading experts on the topics. There's also the issue of facebook posts from people who are definitely experts on certain subjects - i.e. the sixty or so references I had in a much earlier edit of the N type carriage page listing set formations, which were linked to individual dated photographs or data dumps from within the relevant rail authorities. I now have a better idea of wiki's rules/policies etc, both as written and how other people apparently interpret them, but I tend to think those are too restrictive in certain scenarios and at some point I might copy all content across to a wikia or similar site.Anothersignalman (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Victorian Railways

I have contributed to Victorian Railways in various ways, and UK and Australian railways articles and talk pages. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing some context here. Was this in response to something else? Anothersignalman (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victorian Railways flat wagons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleeper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victorian Railways W class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tulloch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited V/Line H type carriage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunbury railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Really been enjoying your articles on Victorian rolling stock. Thanks. Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian Transport

I'd like to invite you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)