User talk:Waegend

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie and Oskar Schindler lived in the very centre of my city for some years after worldwar II. Still historians examine the names of some roads here not to honor people any more that might have had a secret nazi past.
Concerning the citation You kicked off: I have no access to the primary sources. But if nobody delivers them in the end the secondary source might be encyclopedic too. The secondary might even add some clarity or other advantage. So please watch the matter.Waegend (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emilie and Oskar Schindler lived in the very centre of my city for some years after worldwar II. Still historians examine the names of some roads here not to honor people any more that might have had a secret nazi past.
Concerning the citation in Bus Rapd Transit You kicked off: I have no access to the primary sources. But if nobody delivers them in the end the secondary source might be encyclopedic too. The secondary might even add some clarity or other advantage. So please watch the matter.Waegend (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
And just let me know when You received this.Thanks,Diannaa--Waegend (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Waegend! Your additions to Bus rapid transit have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for correcting me. Of course I want to comply with ALL rules. Therefore I really need to find out what was wrong. I guess I cannot look at my mistakes in an archive. It´s a pity I did not check earlier: So I do not remember precisely what might have been wrong. I guess I cited many titles of sections of the source each with a tiny bit of out their text body and wonder if I just forgot citation signs or if I cited to much at last: It would be great if you could add more specific advice.--Waegend (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a set of criteria for BRT standards copied from https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/the-scorecard/ — Diannaa (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I guess I did not copy any set of criteria, but the titles of such sets. Did I forget to add that source or the quotation marks or would I have had to ask for a permission? I still think the content would enrich the article but I do not dare a second attempt. Even so I want to learn from my mistakes.--Waegend (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the headers as well as the entire 38-point list of criteria is indeed a violation of our copyright policy in my opinion. Quotations should be used on Wikipedia only sparingly, and only when there's not alternative. — Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand You would not mind citing just headers (in quotation marks). But "the entire 38-point list of criteria" belonging to THE BRT-BASICS was too much (38 is of course not the number of criteria, just of non verbal points). Sorry I still cannot remember that. I hope to have learned my lesson. Again sorry.--Waegend (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your BRT Certification References on the List of Bus Rapid Transit Systems page[edit]

Hi Waegend. I was revisiting the List of bus rapid transit systems page recently and I noticed that you had added "Not BRT certified in 2022" in quite a few locations, referencing the ITDP BRT Rankings for systems that have been formally ranked by the ITDP (https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/best-practices-2013/).

There are a few things to note about the ITDP BRT Rankings. First, the scoring date and standard version are often quite different, especially with newer systems since the latest version of the Standard was in 2016 (and we are now six years out from then). Second, a system can be re-scored, and multiple scores may be present on the rankings for the same corridor (e.g. Rio de Janeiro TransOeste). And finally, the ITDP is not and will not score all corridors in existence - they are an organization with a fixed budget, that is not capable of flying a team of professionals out to a city to score BRT corridors whenever a new system opens or gets extended. Just because a corridor is not on the list does NOT mean it does not qualify as BRT. It just means they have not scored it as such, either because they do not have the financial means or because they are not interested in doing so.

I recommend reviewing the changes you have made to the page to remove cases where you stated that a system was not BRT due to the system not being present in the spreadsheet, especially if you boldfaced them (the boldfacing is typically unnecessary). I also recommend that you reread the 2016 version of the BRT Standard to better familiarize yourself with the requirements that ITDP itself recommends using. If you were to rate some of the corridors you've edited in as "Not BRT certified in 2022" on your own, you would realize that quite a few do qualify (though many will not). I recommend using the MetroMare in Rimini, Italy as a good case study, as it is a fully grade separated corridor with level boarding at all stations, scoring well over the minimum number of BRT Basics points to meet minimum qualifications for BRT.

I don't mean to dissuade you or trample on your work, but ensuring that Wikipedia is kept up to date but also high quality benefits all users. Thanks. --Sparen (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that a lot of work still has to be done.
I admit that "A FEW" corridors might qualify, if I would have to rate them using just the published data (which are not sufficient), but "MANY" might not.
I recommend reading the lemma BRT creep.
Can't you consider "not BRT certified in 2022" as preliminary information for the reader to be cautious as long as unsourced data for this place have not yet been checked roughly, in addition as a reminder for possible co-authors to contribute to this checking, and this way as "quality benefit to all users"?
I would highly appreciate lemmata like "BRT in Rimini" and "BRT in Italy" and extracted data in this List of Bus Rapid Transit Systems page.
After our rough check (or simple removals) I certainly can imagine removing "Not BRT certified in 2022" from the claimed BRT of rimini and of "a few" others. --Waegend (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that by stating "Not BRT certified in 2022", the impression given to readers is that the system is not BRT even if it meets all requirements. It can easily be misinterpreted as 'This is not BRT' even though the reality is that it just hasn't been formally scored by a specific organization regardless of the infrastructure and service quality along the corridor.
I highly recommend that you run the BRT Basics checklist against every single corridor you placed this statement on, and unboldface all boldfaced examples.
Besides Rimini's Metromare, notable examples that you've labeled include:
- Nagoya, Yutorito Line - fully grade separated corridor means it gets full points for alignment, dedicated right of way, and intersection treatments according to BRT Basics
- Multan Metrobus - fully grade separated; above logic applies
- Martinique - almost entire fully grade separated; above logic applies
- Essen - same as above
- Adelaide O-Bahn - this is one of the most commonly referenced examples of a bus rapid transit line
etc.
If you decide that you want to keep things as they are now, that's fine - but don't be surprised if myself or someone else go and remove the labels. --Sparen (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "not BRT certified in 2022" has to be distinguished from "is not BRT". Weaker than the BRT Standard is the Bus Priority System as defined by Gobal BRT data. Some labels "not BRT certified in 2022" You criticized might be sustituted by "not BRT certified in 2022, but bus priority system according to Global BRT Data". I do not think it is our responsibility to evaluate systems ourselves running a checklist. Certainly we should update the labels once in a while. And you can add facts and reliable sources as well as lemmata like "BRT in Rimini" and "BRT in Italy" . Can we compromise this way?--Waegend (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
itdp (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy) news of December 13, 2017 confirm my point. Itdp stated growing demand for high quality, high capacity transit worldwide and efficient, affordable, and sustainable BRT options providing the capacity, speed, and comfort of metro system. The ITDP and The WRI (World Resources Institute) announced a collaboration between their data bases of bus rapid transit and bus priority systems: Global BRT Data and The BRT Standard. It was explained, that all BRTs were bus priority systems, but not all bus priority systems were BRTs. A bus priority system needed to have some of the features of BRT, such as segregated bus lanes and pre-board fare collection, but not all. https://www.itdp.org/2017/12/13/global-brt-data-now-backed-brt-standard/ Waegend (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Waegend&oldid=1205547440"