User talk:Sulzer55

Bob The Railway Dog
Bob The Railway Dog
Born	Expression error: Unrecognized word "dd"., 1878Expression error: Unrecognized word "mm".Expression error: Unrecognized word "dd".; Unknown
Died	In Dispute
Nationality	Australian
Occupation	Travelling by Train
Known for	Travelling on trains

Steamtown Peterborough Museum

Hi Sulzer, I was present when most of the earlier items happened. My father was the society president during the turbulant years. Thanks for your edits. On a personal note the whole sad affair ended up as predicted by the society members in the 80s - a static museum in the roundhouse. Ozdaren 13:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:IMG 0976.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG 0976.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Steamtown.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Steamtown.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghan

It is a bit confusing as to what you are up to there - I think you might need to put an explanation either in your edit summary or something on the talk page - as text has been removed - I need to know why I dont revert your edit - cheers Satu Suro 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i Have a real problem with the trans australian article - but my editing and presence is very scattered at the moment, it is unlikely i will get to it soon - it really needs two articles if not three- one on the physical track - construction history - then one on the actual named train - and just possibly a third on the weird and wonderful mix of who is what and who owns which bit and who runs what - so please dont bother about me - too many threads and not enough time:) thanks for your message - best of luck keeping the flies off - but by the message below it looks like a long winded explanation on the talk page is needed, sigh Satu Suro 09:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X class

Phew! thnks for that - looks more like a standard article at last - I m not ready at all for large numbers of wa steam or diesel arts yet - but one day :( Satu Suro 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASSCO article

Not entirely sure - but in the car operators article - I am sure that WP:MOS argues against having external links embedded - it is usually better to have them as refs - but that might have been before your edits - havent checked the history Satu Suro 12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THanks - did correct this --Sulzer55 (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NSU class

A tag has been placed on NSU class, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Unscented (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy deletion - really really appreciated - yes it had no content, because I had just started it!.

Can someone please manage the citical commenters and delete Nazis to show some commonsense!

I thought I put a comment on the talk page to say it needs more work!

Please get yourself a life before deleting - see other comments on this page where reasonable people have at least provided a day or two warning Sulzer55 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no note of that sort on the talk page that I saw, just a comment that the page had no content. When you recreate it, I recommend adding the information in your initial edit, so that it won't be deleted again under the same criteria Also, please refrain from personal attacks when discussing the improvement of Wikipedia. --Unscented (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was open to all the censors and delete nazis - not you specifically. If Wiki wishes to survive and thrive, there needs to be some reasonableness around its criteria. Deleting within 30 seconds, witouth warning, is discouraging and petty, and will drive away people who want to contribute. If you took it personally, I apologise Sulzer55 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAGR W Class

This is true, but I still feel that as Mills introduced the actual design, that it should at least be mentioned under his designs. I've written all of this article, as well as WAGR Pr Class, WAGR S Class (which I have only begun) and the majority of WAGR locomotive stubs. I would appreciate any help to improve any and all of these articles, as well as suggestions as to improvements. With the W class, I think that Mill's influence was enough to at least have him credited, though perhaps a note should be attached to explain his role?

Regards, Corporal29 (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X Class

Due to my very weird range of edit territory i have not followed the loco arts v closely - but there are some issues - some POV stuff and some phrases are not enyc style - will get back to em later - either some in art cites or some editing might be needed imho Satu Suro 14:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bob the Railway Dog

A tag has been placed on Bob the Railway Dog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Halestock (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to create very short articles with no meaningful content. If you do not have time to write more than a few words, may I suggest that you either wait to start until you have more time, or alternatively create your article in a subpage and move it into article-space on completion? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not prepared to re-create your article in order for you to flesh it out, as you say, in the next few weeks. There is not enough substance in the article as it stands to retain it under any circumstance or for any length of time. What I can do is to insert your text onto this page to enable you to work on it.

--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony - the new page is from scratch, and, as per communications, up and runningSulzer55 (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steamtown Peterborough Museum

Is there a reason you blanked this article? I reverted your blanking, but if there is a valid reason I'd consider undoing my edit. Regards Tiderolls 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPM intro tweaking

Hi, I was watching the unfolding edits on the SPM page and waited until things settled. I was unsure how much of the article was your work and what was later edits. In any case I decided to make some small changes to the intro. I linked through to http://www.johnnyspages.com/ there are some great Peterborough and Mt Gambier photos and commentary. I missed out on that era by 10 years. Peterborough was a shadow of itself even in the late 70s early 80s. Ozdaren (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free Images in you User Space

Hey there Sulzer55, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Sulzer55/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc.

Howdy, someone is trying to add a personal spin to the SPRPS article and the museum one. Have a look at my talk page as well. Ideas? Ozdaren (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I take it you have read my comments on Ozdaren's Talk page - so you will be aware that I am 1) in agreeance with separating the 2 pages as entirely separate entities, 2) I am trying to remove the ambiguity between the 2 pages (hence my changing "Steamtown" to "Society", etc on the Society's page) and 3) I am trying to expand the article on Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre as it is today.

The 2 of you appear to be trying to perpetuate the animosity that exists between the Society's members and the current operation of Steamtown. This strikes me as being contrary to the ethics of Wikipedia which strives for factual and unbiased reportage.

I have not tried to remove your base information from the Society's page (factual/biased or not).

I have found some of your information to be misleading (by your choice of phrasing and omissions of information) but do not want to get into an editing war with you guys so I have not put "my slant" into your article.

Can we please discuss this as I feel that you should run "your" page (on the Society) and you should let others run the Heritage Rail Centre page (either party being able to correct information which is patently false or misleading on the others page [after discussion]).

If we cannot come to some understanding on the right of individuals to edit Wikipedia to make Wikipedia better, then there are formal avenues which can be followed to resolve the conflict.

mmm - you gave us two minutes to respond, and then hit the path for a dispute resolution.........Sulzer55 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After several attempts at editing the SHRC site and having ALL of my edits removed without notice nor (in my opinion) just cause and contrary to the way Wikipedia works - I was left feeling that you were not open to discussion. I mentioned the further avenues of addressing the problem only to prompt you into discussing the edits rather than the continued blanket removal of anything which I had added. Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Ozdaren says ; Any "Ideas?"

Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you have documents to support your claims, or opinions, that'd be great. You have made a number of changes, and have added your own spin, but little, if anything to support your position. AM not trying to "perpetuate animosity" - the players in this sad saga have done that - just trying to be as objective as I can, based on the documents I have referenced. Sulzer55 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could quote from some recent articles about Steamtown today from the local papers. I could also write an article for the local paper and then quote from that, but I would be the source of that information and have chosen to bypass that step. Is written information the only source of information that you will accept? In court a first person account is evidence, a second person account is hearsay. I have made no contentious claims and am a "first person account" for the source of the information. Mangoeater2 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulzer55

I have not tried to change the information on your Society page - just tried to clarify for the person researching "Steamtown Peterborough" that your page does not refer to "Steamtown Peterborough" (the SHRC) as it is today. To the uninitiated "Steamtown Peterborough" is the source of ambiguity - which leads to a need to disambiguify the situation.

its not "my" page - it is a page I and others have put up about steamtown - I think Ozdarren started the original page, which I have split into SPRPS and SHRCSulzer55 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the separation as they are two distinct entities. The references to the SPRPS on the SHRC site are there as part of the history of the current SHRC and allow the reader to go to the SPRPS site to follow up on that part of the history if they wish to. Due to both entities being known as "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough", hats would be beneficial.Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Do a Google search on "Steamtown" and the second suggestion is "Steamtown Peterborough", clicking on this leads you to a list of pages (the second being a Wikipedia reference). Clicking on this leads one to the Society's page. An uninformed person would NOT know that this is not the current "Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre" page. Only at the bottom is a reference to the SHRC. Disambiguation - by inserting a "hat" - is to allow a person to realise their error right at the start before reading any further. I suggest that most would read your article anyway out of curiosity before moving on to the SHRC page.

On your page I have tried to change wording such as "Steamtown" to "Society" to remove the confusion such as that of "Steamtown" ceased operations in 2005 (which entity?). I have not tried to change your base information.

Note: I must avail myself of the Council Minutes relating to the "Disposal" of assets (as "disposal" could mean "transfer" as I believe it does). I will try to do this next week.

these are hyperlinked off the page - they clearly state "ministerial approval" and "disposal" Sulzer55 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without access to EVERY document surrounding this point (giving a timetable to the events) I cannot comment, but will refrain from trying to ameliorate your wording on this point in future. This is past history and is not important to me. Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information and pictures that I have added to the SHRC site are sourced from me. I am a current member of the Section 41 Committee set up by the Council and as such, I guess, I could cite myself as a reference. John Evans (who you have cited as a reference) is also a member of the current committee.

It would be nice if all the SHRC minutes were on the web - this would certainly assist in clarifying what is happeningSulzer55 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I try to put up "what is happening" and you remove that information! : )

The Minutes would probably not help, they are so minimalist in their information that even I could not reconstruct what had happened since I was on the committee if I had not been there.

As regards what is happening: It is all about the future. You already know the nature of Steamtown as a static museum. The Council has set up SHRC to be a major drawcard for tourists coming to Peterborough. The precinct is being developed to provide a "world class" experience for the visitor (comments from visitors are already showing that this is happening - read the visitor book for evidence). I beleive the Sound and Light Show was conceived as a method of getting tourists to plan an overnight stop in Peterborough (rather than just passing through) thereby having time to visit the other tourist attractions such as Meldonfield, the Motorcycle Museum and other places of interest (I was not on the committee when this was planned). The S&L Show is an impressive display in itself I might add.

It is expected that the tourist trade will eventually cause the creation of 24-25 new jobs in town - not just in the SHRC. The plan seems to be working as the daily visitors to the SHRC have risen from 4-5 a day up to a high of 100+ a day as at present; and the number of tourists staying in Peterborough has risen dramatically.

Since the new Manager has been employed, the visitor figures have been climbing steadily.

I am not saying that the SHRC is the only cause of this increase in tourist numbers, but it has been the major catalyst for such change. If you are based in Adelaide or nearby, then I invite you to come up and see the SHRC as it is today rather than trying to piece things together from what little has been written about it. Channel 9 recently did a Postcards piece on Steamtown - found here: http://www.postcards.sa.com.au/. It doesn't really say much but it does show us as we are today.

The SHRC is still suffering from the animosity that was created when the SPRPS collapsed - ex members in Peterborough are still reticent about volunteering at the centre, but there are enough people in town to make up the numbers - the loss of the expertise from the ex SPRPS people is a problem that the SHRC has had to overcome. Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I again ask you to consider what you are doing in relation to the SHRC site, especially as you seem to think that "Undoing" edits is preferable to adding "<Citation needed>".

I will take a photo of the "Founding Members" of the "Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc" Honour Board for your information (I will do this tomorrow). Photo can be found here: http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa143/mangoeater2/ You would already have seen images with the Society's Logo on the front of 2 of the engines. You have been removing references to this honouring of the work of the Society from the SHRC site. Even the Sound and Light Show honours the work of the Society.

- so, are you wanting separate pages or not? - confusion?Sulzer55 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want the 2 pages to be kept separate, but the history of the SPRPS is an integral part of the SHRC as it is today. To remove references of the SPRPS from the SHRC site, and thereby denying this history, would be insulting to the ex SPRPS members. Confusion would be increased dramatically if the 2 pages were to be rejoined. The addition of the hats would remove any confusion (real or imagined). Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say that my information is unreferenced is not true (in the sense that my information is unfounded). I am the source of the information, as a member of the Management Committee. Let me list myself as a "Reference" before deleting my additions. Note: There was a comment about the number of items on display which had as a reference an Unidentified person at the State of Steam in the Rundle Mall - hardly an encyclopedic Reference.

To protect them, I have not put their name upSulzer55 (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But still not a verifiable "reference" as required by Wikipedia.

What would you do if I had inserted "The Parliamentary Enquiry was the result of the level of corruption and disorganization within the Preservation Society at the time. Source: Unnamed person - personal comment"? You would delete it IMMEDIATELY as not being a valid reference (and so it should be - I could make up anything and say "Unnamed Source - personal comment").

Note: That was an actual comment made to me by someone who probably did know what was going on at the time. No I am not trying to stir up trouble, hence my NOT amending the base information on the SPRPS page (I have no proof [and no desire to seek proof] that comments like that are factual). The mention of the "Parliamentary Enquiry" and subsequent "Act of Parliament" is enough to tell anyone reading the page that something "very serious" was amiss with the SPRPS at that time.

I think that a section detailing exactly what happened during that period would be a fascinating addition to the SPRPS page. Perhaps you could discuss this with Ozdaren as he was the "President's son during those turbulent years" and would be a good source of information from that side of the argument. On second thoughts, better not. : ) John Evans has written about it in his latest(?) book, but wrote it in such tactful terms as to have been criticised for it by the critics. (He read out a critique of his book at our last meeting). Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions for you and Ozdaren:

Who are you?

What is your relationship to a) "Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc" and b) to the "Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre"?

Why do you feel that your input is the only input that is valid for these Wikipedia pages?

your subjective assessmentSulzer55 (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between Ozdaren's "Howdy, someone is trying to add a personal spin to the SPRPS article and the museum one. Have a look at my talk page as well. Ideas? Ozdaren (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)" and both of you continually reversing all of my edits leads me to this conclusion.

This continued discussion and my almost needing to seek permission from you to add the hats is another example of your "ownership" of the pages.

Allowing others to edit the pages would remove my concerns on this point. Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to give you my email address to continue this discussion (a recent Gmail address - from which I will give you my direct address). Will you reciprocate? or do you wish to only continue the discussion through these Talk pages?

The talk pages are the right place for such discussion Sulzer55 (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to see that most of my amendments trying to disambiguify the situation ("Steamtown" to "Society") appear to still be in place on your page.

if you mean clarify, then yes, you have done that, and I have no problem with that.Sulzer55 (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the term "Disambiguation", "clarification" has the same meaning for my puposes. I am further trying to "clarify" the distinction between the SPRPS and the SHRC (both known as "Steamtown" or "Steamtown Peterborough" to the general public) hence my desire to add the 'hats" to each page. I do not understand your reasons for removing the hats unless you want people to think that the SPRPS site is about the current SHRC. Please discuss this point as I feel that the hats are essential. If you are not trying to purposely confuse the issue then please allow the placement of the hats. Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is to allow people who are researching their trips through Peterborough to realise that a "Static" Museum still exists in the town and that this may entice them to visit Peterborough and its other attractions (many more than just Steamtown). This will benefit Peterborough, not just Steamtown.

the Steamtown PRPS page has linked to the heritage centre page, which in turn has linked to the heritage centres own page ever since I separated the two. Your concern re confusion, is in my opinion, unfounded.Sulzer55 (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough" are the causes of the confusion. I feel that my concerns ARE warranted. The hats will not stop a reader from reading your page, but the removal of the hats may prevent them from finding the page that they are looking for. Hats allow the reader to see up front if they are on the page they are expecting, hence Wikipedia has put them in as a provision for doing exactly that. Links within a page are good, but a reader must persevere to get to them. The placement of a hat at the top of each of these pages would be a courtesy to the reader. Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoeater2 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulzer55

I still want to pad out the SHRC site with more information and pictures and I want to add the hats to each page without having my edits constantly reversed by you and or Ozdaren.

I will welcome any constructive criticism of the information on the SHRC page - especially if it increases the accuracy of that information, but not if it is just petty editing. A point as example - either you or Ozdaren criticised and deleted my mention of the 3 gauge turntable saying it was not uncommon (or something similar - I forget now) but my limited research suggests that there were 3 in Australia (Peterborough, Gladstone and Port Pirie) and that the Peterborough one is one of only two still remaining in the world. If so, then this is hardly an insignificant datum to a Railway Buff. I may be incorrect on this - so please let me know.

Just noted your removal of my section on the SHRC site re "Operation" - My reference?: I am a direct source of information being a Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre Committee member - I do not have to cite any written passages to support my non contentious statements. A much BETTER question is "Do you have any reasons / references / justifications to counter my statements?"

You seem to be very quick at removing any edits - WHY? See my comments as to why I say you seem too think that only your comments are valid on these pages. When seeing these kinds of "petty edits" it becomes obvious that you claim "ownership" of these pages and it is not just my "subjective assessment".

Another of your amendments contradicts what is written on the SPRPS site - "A number of issues within the organisation and the town eventually led to the operational equipment being transferred, following a Parliamentary Select Committee enquiry and subsequent Act of Parliament, to the Corporation of Peterborough, with management of the rollingstock being vested in the "Steamtown Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc"[16][17]." - (SPRPS site). Here it is stated that the operational equipment went to the Council but the management of the rolling stock stayed with the SPRPS, yet you say that both were transferred to the Council on the SHRC site ("removed reference to control - the vesting of property Act gave DCP full control when it was enabled in 1985/86)". Are you really "just trying to be as objective as I can, based on the documents I have referenced. Sulzer55 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)"?

I also amended the date that the SPRPS ceased operations on the SHRC site (from 2003 to 2005 as stated on the SPRPS site), but this was reversed back to 2003. Petty editing?

I ask you to please refrain from removing the hats and from constantly removing my edits to the SHRC site. For the record, could you please state any reasons why you feel that your edits are more worthy than mine.

Mangoeater2 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just reversed your removal of "also known as "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough"". The SHRC IS known by these names - hence my discussion above about "hats" etc. Your removal of these common names for the SHRC does not change the fact that it is known by these names today! Mangoeater2 (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Discussion pages for SHRC and SPRPS. Truce? Mangoeater2 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so you continue to attack me and my work, use your "mates" as references, but here are offering a "truce" - to be honest I did not know we were at War? The behaviour I have seen is one reason the show fell over...Sulzer55 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you on? I am trying to correct ambiguities and (perceived) bias only. I am trying to get the 2 pages to reflect their actual situations instead of the "spin" that had been placed on them.

I can't even begin to know what you mean by "use your "mates" as references".

There has been a continual struggle to get my amendments up - you revert them (possibly even without reading them as is obvious on some reversions) - and yet in most instances you eventually accept the thrust of the changes (though you do seem to like to reword everything - LOL).

I have felt vey strongly that your reverting my initial amendments was contrary to the way Wikipedia works and felt incensed that you thought you had the right to do so without first adding <citation needed> (in fact you just accuse the changes as being "vandalism"). This was the cause of my initial adverse reaction.

I called a "truce" to say "let's begin again - now quietly discussing changes, etc". I see that you are still taking an agressive stance. As regards "The behaviour I have seen is one reason the show fell over..." - quite probably - but I was not there - and it is not necessary to continue the squabbling by those who were. As they say "It is a bran nue dae". Mangoeater2 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the blue

Hi Sulzer, I must admit the tone and direction of Mangoeater2's comments have flawed me. I missed this developing as I was away for a week (the Murray is beautiful this time of year). Since I have no agenda and certainly harbour no ill feeling towards the creation of a static museum in Peterborough I'm somewhat perplexed by M2's attitude. I've been very thankful that there has been an article created about Steamtown. I think you have been doing a create job filling in detail about the society. I don't detect a bias in your edits. Keep up the good work. Cheers Ozdaren (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply to Sulzer55 on my talk page.

A comparison of the original text to the current text will show where I percieved bias (and where it has been removed). The core information has been retained in most areas - either just the wording has been changed or extra information has been added (see my latest edit in "The End"). The 2 pages are very much in agreeance with my thoughts now (including suggestions that niether side was blameless in the demise of the SPRPS).

I have commented to Sulzer55 (in my reply on my talk page) that this has been a learning experience for me and also, if he had done things differently from the beginning, that my response might have been very different.

I have apologised in several places now for my behaviour - but like the 2 organisations, niether side is totally blameless.

I also apologise to you for my behaviour. Mangoeater2 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on my talk page

I have already apologised somewhere for my behaviour and have repeated it in my reply to your comments on my Talk page.

Mangoeater2 (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steamtown Peterborough concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steamtown Peterborough, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Steamtown Peterborough

Hello Sulzer55. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Steamtown Peterborough.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steamtown Peterborough}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

300/SAR

The small detail in the ASG lists the six and who built them. Durrant's book shows details but as they were 2nd hand to SAR the numbering doesn't seem to match. Also, minor tech specs in cyl diam and tractive effort, p.198 , I need more ref books. ;) --Dave Rave (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to WAGR X class 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:

1986) and XA1403 (November 1986) to allow these units to haul ex-QR coaches on suburban services).
]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sulzer55. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sulzer55. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sulzer55. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on Bob the Railway Dog. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	User:Viriditas has beaten me to the railway dog but your contributions to Steamtown Peterborough Railway Preservation Society are also much appreciated! gidonb (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]