User talk:Zozzie 9t9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome to my talk page!

Image Uploads[edit]

To Commons.svg

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [1]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW It also helps to provide a fully completed {{information}} box for images, this assists those wishing to re-use the image, as well as helping establish it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rover 75[edit]

Hello, I saw the edit you just made here. Please consider reremoving the links. Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM and we do not add links to organizations about a general article subject. If the subject of an article is a particular organization then we link to the specific organization in the specific article. Please see WP:ELNO point 13 which explains it clearly: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. Also, we avoid long lists of links as we are not a directory, nor are we a linkfarm. ThemFromSpace 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Owners Clubs should, I think, be ok; plenty of car articles on Wikipedia have links to clubs, registers and organisations which concern the model(s) discussed in the article. It makes sense to me. For instance at the end of the Rover 75 article there is a link to the 75 & ZT Owners Club's site - seemed entirely suitable to me. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please reread the above. It is not ok to link to organizations unless they are the subject of the article. Please discuss the merit of individual links on the talkpage. ThemFromSpace 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Will you be removing links to owners' clubs from all car articles in this case? Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rover 75[edit]

Please stop undoing edits on this page. The article at present is largely opinion masquerading as fact. Each statement should be verifiable and supported by external references. Wikipedia is not a forum for individuals to expound their version of events, it is supposed to be an independent and verifiable reference source. If you wish to improve the page, provide appropriate references where they are presently absent.

Note this very important statement which appears whenever someone adds content to Wikepedia:

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

Even if the information perpetuates others' mistakes from elsewhere? Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lotaresco (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hull and Barnsley dates[edit]

Why do you change the dates - it's quite clear that the main work was finished in 2008, and all the sources say that. If there's more infomation please mention it on the talk page, or source it. Please reply on the talk page of the article. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hull and Barnsley Railway. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it appears so, but the person concerned is posting incorrect information. I workjed on the project concerned and I know exactly what happened. One issue is that many supporting documents are not yet in the public domain, but this is no excuse for someone continuing to publish misleading information in articles. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether the information is incorrect or not, it should be verifiable since clearly it's "material challenged or likely to be challenged" within the terms of that policy. I have no way of checking whether or not you worked on the project, but per WP:BURDEN if you make a change you must be prepared to back it up with references.
I called WP:3RR because your first related edit to this article was 20:41, 19 January 2011; the second at 19:51, 20 January 2011, the third at 20:03, 20 January 2011 - all inside 24 hours. Please see WP:BRD - you were WP:BOLD, Sf5xeplus reverted, but a discussion was not started until 20:01, 20 January 2011. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The matter was sorted in the end. I think the route cause was a difference between what was actually happening on the ground and what was being put out for the media. The offical opening was also a staged publicty event and at the time work was no where near complete and caused some confusion too. To add to it all, for the ebenfit of those on the opening special, those on the project were instructed not to be on site if at all possible that day to give the impression of it being finished!
You say you have "no way of checking whether or not you worked on the project" which is true (though I can show you pictures of me standing in the four foot at Bridges Junction in Hull!) and that "make a change you must be prepared to back it up with references" but I steadfastly refuse to allow information (whther it was in good faith, as I believe Sf5xeplus' edits were, or otherwise) to go unchallenged - here or in the real world.
One other thing to bear in mind is that if it wasn't for people, like me, who work in the Rail Industry adding bits here and there, many of the rail related articles would be much poorer as a result. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Typical RMweb Appearance.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Typical RMweb Appearance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue appears to be the current trend of editing British Railway Modelling by those with a conflict of interest. It appears to have been remved during one of these, "Removal of non-representative image posted by troll", a post by the web editor would seem representative! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)