User talk:Ibsiadkgneoeb

First Great Western franchise information[edit]

I accept that the franchise agreements for FGW will not likely directly impact the station fabric, but it does not seem illogical that articles which include information on who runs trains from a station will contain information about who will run trains in future. Especially since all the articles make extensive reference to the companies which operated there before. The paragraph explaining the situation is not especially long, and I hardly think it's a problem, especially given that at least five of the articles you edited are listed as "good article"s. I have reverted your changes, and urge you to discuss this at WT:UKRAIL if you disagree. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Custom Coaches‎. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 414[edit]

Thank you for your new article on London Buses route 414. If you have a look through the history, you will find that there is some content here from pre-redirection. Feel free to copy some of it over.--Laun chba ller 13:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to London Buses route 46 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

closed and the allocation moved once more, this time to [[Metroline#King's Cross (KC)|King's Cross)]]. On 27 January 2007 the route was extended from Warwick Avenue to [[Lancaster Gate tube station|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to London Buses route 147 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

station|Ilford station]] to [[Leytonstone]] was renumbered 147. In May 1948 it was extended to [[Redbridge railway station|Redbridge station]. In June 1954 it was extended south to [[North

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to London Buses route 85 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|end = [Kingston, London|Kingston]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to London Buses route 332 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Buses route 316|route 316]] between [[Neasden]] and [[Metroline#Cricklewood (W)|Cricklewood garage)]], then continuing to [[London Paddington station|Paddington station]], running parallel with

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

London Buses route 157 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to West Croydon and Wallington

London Buses route 91 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Holloway and Caledonian Road

London Buses route 124 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grove Park

London Buses route 156 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wimbledon

London Buses route 185 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Forest Hill

London Buses route 235 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sunbury railway station

London Buses route 237 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sunbury

London Buses route 28 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Westbourne Park

London Buses route 319 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chelsea

London Buses route 345 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chelsea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses articles[edit]

Ibsiadkgneoeb, I can see you're determined to go ahead with these articles, but I would like to urge you not to restore them unless you have reliable sources to back them up, and independent ones to demonstrate their notability. Without these, the articles are sure to fail AfD.

Of the articles I have reverted to redirects, the first one, London Buses route 85, you recreated again with two new added citations, both from Ian's Bus Stop, a blog, and clearly not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. The article now has three source citations, all of which are unreliable.

A similar situation is true of the second, route 200, which has three added from Ian's Bus Stop, plus two primary source citations from Transport for London, none of which do anything to establish notability. Route 474 added two primary source citations, and so on.

I'd like to suggest that you work on these offline, finding reliable, independent sources for them (if any exist) before reinstating them to article space. Alternatively, you could work on as many of them in Draft space simultaneously as works for you, but again not moving them to article space until they are reliably and properly sourced.

Finally, to use edit summaries such as "copy edit" when changing a redirect to a texted article is, frankly, inaccurate. You are creating new versions of articles that had been deemed not notable, which is not a copy edit by any normal definition. When you add new material, it isn't a copy edit either. Putting the "new page" template on some of the articles makes that very clear; as it says right in the template's first sentence, "This page was just created." BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The latest "new" page, with a false edit summary of "copy edit", shows me that you are not taking the notability guidelines seriously (or the editing ones, for that matter). London Buses route 95 has not a single source demonstrating WP:GNG adherence: the Transport for London source, the only one that mentions route 95 by name, is primary, as is the First Group announcement of their sale of routes. That last source is one of three that support First Group's sale (overkill for a single sentence), and while the other two are secondary sources, none of them actually say that route 95 was one of these routes. This just doesn't cut it. Alzarian16's edit summary, when redirecting the article over three years ago, was "Route lacks the coverage in reliable secondary sources required by WP:GNG." This remains true, and you shouldn't be restoring these articles unless you can supply those sources with significant coverage yourself. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC) [updated at 02:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)][reply]

I see you've reverted me on route 95, with a request that I respect the new page hatnote. While I think your use of the template is questionable—this is not a new article, but a restoration and updating of an old one—I'm going to insist that you use the template properly (see Template:Newpage): This template is not intended to be used beyond the Wikipedia session in which one is engaged at the time it is placed. In other words, it is not intended to be used if one is planning to log off for a while and resume at a later hour or day. This is not a magic wand that keeps people away for a week: it's to give someone time to finish their initial series of edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just took at look at WP:UKBRQDRIVE, because I found it hard to believe that a WikiProject would advocate ignoring WP:GNG. It turns out that, like the "newpage" template, you're invoking something as justification when it isn't intended to allow what you claim. In particular, your articles are not covered by the drive: At this point it is probably advisable to avoid London Bus route articles pending further discussion. You might want to ask the project for help in finding reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of individual routes, which is what is needed for every one of your articles so far. That's the only thing that's going to satisfy the notability requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Ibsiadkgneoeb", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Peter James (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

London Buses route 140 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Queensbury, Harlington and Harrow

London Buses route 18 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Harrow and Stonebridge

London Buses route 220 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to West Croydon and White City

London Buses route 81 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Langley and Harlington

London Buses route 207 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Acton

London Buses route 210 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Archway

London Buses route 242 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hackney

London Buses route 28 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Westbourne

London Buses route 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charing Cross station

London Buses route 381 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Waterloo

London Buses route 425 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bow

London Buses route 436 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Park Lane

London Buses route 466 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Purley

London Buses route 607 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Acton

London Buses route 63 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blackfriars

London Buses route 88 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Acton Green

London Buses route H28 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cranford

London Buses route H91 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cranford

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, so if you think we are wrong then please tell us. But users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block - read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does this username violate policy? It's simply a bunch of random characters. Nothing offensive.--Laun chba ller 13:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ibsiadkgneoeb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

ManfromBristol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I didn't think my username was offensive, disruptive or misleading, or certainly not the intent. While a random collection of letters from the outside, does have a personal meaning, nonetheless I hope the proposed change will remedy.

Accept reason:

Well, I have no idea what was supposed to be offensive about your username, but maybe there is a good reason that I don't know about. Anyway, since you have offered to change your username, I shall unblock you to allow a username change to the requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ibsiadkgneoeb (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seen the explanation of your username, and it is a clear and unambiguous attack on another editor, albeit a veiled one which escaped detection for a long time. Also, you clearly lied in your unblock request, and it is virtually certain that the account is a sockpuppet. For those reasons, I have restored the block, and if you wish to be unblocked you had better give a full and complete explanation. (Even then, I wouldn't count on being unblocked.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]