User talk:Daybeers

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for letting me know about being more conservative with minor edits. I will do so in the future. I am new to Wikipedia so was unsure, but will review the guidelines again. Thanks again for the support! Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing this parameter because it's utterly useless information - a single year-over-year ridership change doesn't indicate anything remotely significant. If there is a significant change in ridership, it should be discussed in the text - and cited for both past and current values. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree: I think it's very useful information. If I'm already looking at the ridership, why wouldn't I think the percentage change compared to the previous year is useful and/or interesting information? If you don't think the parameter shows useful information, that's a much bigger issue that you need to take up on Template talk:Infobox station. –Daybeers (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because that year-over-year change isn't accurate, for one. Manual year-over-year ridership counts have a great degree of randomness - 5-10% (or more) is not unusual for most stations - and even faregated systems have a lot of data issues. This is especially true in the US, where ridership count methodology on most systems tends to be shaky at best. (The MBTA is particularly bad at this - their commuter rail data collection is done by the conductors and often varies 20% or more each time, and the subway data has serious issues. Email me if you want more explanation.) So that year-over-year "ridership change" is more likely to be a measure of how accurate the data collection is, than it is any actual variation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly talking about the Amtrak data, which I believe is fairly reliable since it's done through their ARROW reservation system, but please tell me if you think otherwise. I used to edit a lot of WMATA station articles and would always put the percent change on there because their system works by tapping in and out, so it's more reliable than other transit systems. But are you saying those have a lot of data issues? Is that what you meant by the "faregated systems"? –Daybeers (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak data is definitely better than others (though I'm not sure if they capture trips taken with monthly passes) because ticketing and data collection are combined, and ticket collection is extremely reliable. Even so, a lot of year-to-year variation is going to be statistical randomness, rather than any significant trends - but showing year-over-year percent implies significance. (Note than on British stations, they include 5-10 years of ridership in the infobox; while I think that's a complete waste of space, it does give actual context to the variations.) Does that -3.3% on Schenectady station actually mean a notable decline in ridership, or is it just random variation? Having it in the article implies it's significant, but there's no citation saying that it means anything.

Yes, WMATA is a prime example of a faregated system. All the metro systems in the US, and a handful of light rail systems, use faregates, and ridership counts are usually based on those. They are of course more reliable than commuter rail and light rail systems where counts are done man ually However, there still are both backend technical issues and methodology issues (for example, counts are often scaled to approximate fare evasion, and that scaling often varies year-to-year) that make calculating year-to-year variation based on published data very questionable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure articles need to explain the percentage change. I think it's just there as an interesting fact. But, as a said earlier, if you feel strongly on this and whether the data is valid, then please do bring it up in the template talk. –Daybeers (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you were removing the parameter, why did you also remove the access-date parameter from the references for ridership data? –Daybeers (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, access-date is intended for sources that may vary over time - news articles and so on. PDF reports, Google Books sources, etc - and especially archived versions with a valid archive-date parameter - have no need to denote the date they were viewed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Honestly, I do not sufficiently closely follow these articles or have the bandwidth to figure out how to engage someone appropriate. I appreciate your taking the time, although I don't know what the next step is, or if in fact a next step is warranted. jhawkinson (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thanks for taking the first step! I have responded and want to see if the situation escalates further before possibly involving administrators. –Daybeers (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What else can you tell me about Billie Eilish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:7D00:5800:845D:501F:6848:24E3 (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:8803:7D00:5800:845D:501F:6848:24E3: I would suggest just reading the article! I'm a fan but don't know much about her; I was just passing through. –Daybeers (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know there isn't any sources for the metrobus pages, but can we at least have the divisions and frequency each bus route runs out of instead of not putting them there. And for the discontinued bus routes can we at least just have when each route was discontinued at least? No history and sources involved.

Look, there really shouldn't be any content on Wikipedia without a source. It's really not that difficult to find sources. –Daybeers (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so can we can at least have where each route get their buses, the frequency of each route, and when each of the route was discontinued at least? It was apart of the article when it was first started in 2006 and it's featured on the Ride On, Fairfax Connector, and other bus pages.

If you cite those pages, sure, that's great! Like I said before, please read the Wikipedia policies I posted on both Metrobus talk pages. –Daybeers (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Metrobus routes (Washington, D.C.). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism, for the reason to not letting others to find sources for notes and history. I understand that routes history needs to be a separate articles, but if it's a minor history, it can be kept as almost ALL routes sections on the bus service in North America provides small detailed history. Notes MUST be present to explain on the bus routes. Not all notes will show on the official article as it will be part of the routes box information. Please allow us a chance to keep the notes and history section, until we review on what should be kept and what should not, and until sources are found. If I find original research on history, it will be removed on the specific part, not the entire column. If there are notes that are not neccesary, it will be removed, not the entire article. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. The more you delete content, the harder it will take to fix the article, and can remain original research for even longer. Thank you. Leobran2018 (talk) ^contribs 14:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leobran2018 The reason I removed the notes and history sections was because they aren't needed on a list article. It makes the charts far too difficult to read. If you'd like to have that information on Wikipedia, that goes in the individual route articles. I did not block anything as I'm not an administrator, and wouldn't do that anyway. I see a bit of WP:OWNERSHIP creeping in here, especially the idea of blocking me while you improve the article. As I said before, I started a discussion on both talk pages, so please go there if you'd like to discuss this further so others may participate as well. Thank you! –Daybeers (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but as I mentioned, just let us to keep a little bit. It’s obvious that I’m not keeping ALL notes and history on the article. Some of them will be removed, but I don’t want many users cause any Edit Wars as it can get us blocked. And I will review the talk pages for the Metrobus articles. Leobran2018 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, you've done this in other articles, too. Please head Leobran2018's advice, having a reason for it doesn't mean it's not vandalism. Agassiz830 (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Agassiz830: Okay, let's start with referencing your previous comments posted at 12:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC) here and later removed here: You've gotta make a case for your edits. You have a long history of undoing valid additions to Wikipedia. You need to utilize the talk feature, especially after undoing with ZERO reasoning several good edits by multiple users in just this last week alone.[reply]

Can you please point out to me these reverts with "ZERO reasoning"? If you're referring to the edits on Metrobus (Washington, D.C.) and List of Metrobus routes (Washington, D.C.), I created a new section in each page's talk page addressing the issues in the article. If you have a problem with the edits on that article, please comment in the section I created. The additions may be valid, but they need sources. Also, for the list article, most of the information being added is just not needed, excessively detailed, and clutters up the table to the point of it becoming unreadable. Why do we need the history of a bus route in a list of bus routes? That should go on the individual route articles. I don't believe I've vandalized Wikipedia, at least in the last three years or so, but please tell me if you think otherwise. –Daybeers (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to at least explain why the edit occured. You did not. YOu simply removed valid information that was well written and in the proper place. In the future please take the time to make sure you're not removing good information without explaining. 2601:346:280:833:297B:A25F:E86F:EC09 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daybeers: Hey there!

I was wondering if you feel it would be worth it to create an article for the old Clearwater station? It was served by the Floridian and Silver Meteor, and is the only station along those routes that lacks its own page. Let me know what you think!

Thanks! Cpotisch (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have enough information and sources to back it up to make it notable, go for it! –Daybeers (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daybeers. We need your help at Wikimedia commons. We recently discussed about the WMATA Metrobus articles, about notability, and to not look like a travel guide. As we seen that Doctor of Directions had an issue by adding many bytes to the list of routes article, and unsourcing on its main route article, the user also have issues in the images at Wikimedia Commons. If you can engage this discussion, that can be great, as since the user uploaded the images, before you explained on needs more work, I noted copyright issues. I discussed with the user on his talk page about Google Maps images, which is copyrighted, on November 10, but seems that the user kept uploading a pack load of them and putting them into many Maryland Metrobus articles. I will leave a link here, and can be discussed here. Ping anyone you know that can also be involved in the discussion. Thank you. Leobran2018 (talk) 4:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

As of December 14, 2019, the image discussion is closed, and the link is now archieved. Leobran2018 (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daybeers! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cdots has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]