Talk:Victorian Goldfields Railway

Untitled section

I have re-added the 5 year mark for Castlemaine Operations. An active member myself, after discussion with other members, we think that marking the occasion on this site is justified. I have given in to Zzrbiker and his complete ignorance towards factual and up to date information on many pages. I have made it clear some things cannot be cited when they come straight from the horses mouth.

I would appreciate, as a member of the VGR, that this little edit remains without the need for my IP to be banned again. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.228.4 (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you seriously need to lose the belligerent attitude and drop the personal attacks. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're ignorant. As it happens, I'm also a member of the Victorian Goldfields Railway, and a number of other preservation societies, I'm in receipt of the regular newsletters on preservation, so it's a bit rich for you to assert complete ignorance on my part. Calling me ignorant, telling me to sod off (or anyone else for that matter) is totally inappropriate. More to the point, it's ultimately going to work against you whenever you expect people to respect your edits, or adminstrators to not ban you.

Secondly, Encyclopedias are supposed to be totally neutral in tone. See WP:NPOV - and note that this is a core policy. There can be no bias, positive or negative. Wikipedia does not tell people "Well done!" or say "A great effort to all volunteers over the years!" If you want to cheer people on, that's very valid and commendable, but it's inappropriate on Wikipedia. I suggest that it would be more appropriate for the VGR article to note that the railway has succeeded in rebuilding the entire route from Maldon to Castlemaine and remaining in continuous operation through the dedication and hard work of its volunteer members. That is an objective and neutral way of stating the point, and also verifiable through countless news articles.

Thirdly, I think you need to understand what constitutes fact on an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, verifiability outweighs truth. That's a basic rule. See WP:V. A case in point: you might think that WCR discontinued steam operations because they were apathetic, but without references that is not fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's just a point of view, a contentious one at that, and if published articles don't back it up, it's not verifiable and doesn't belong here. See WP:NOR. I suspect Don Gibson of WCR would probably disagree with your assertion of apathy, and he certainly would know the facts.

As far as "giving in to me" on other pages (and I note that this is not really relevant to the VGR page). Go have a look at those page histories. Your edits across various articles were reverted or protected against by at least five editors, not just me. I'm just the only one who tried to explain to you why your edits were being reverted. When the R, J and K class articles were locked by an adminstrator (not me) to stop your constant reverts, instead of telling me to sod off and that you'd wait until the lock was lifted, you really should have had a good hard think about whether what you were doing on Wikipedia was appropriate. The fact that your IP was also blocked tends to reinforce this.

Your edits to other articles did not really add any new detail of note, but removed truckloads of detail that had been put in by other editors. In the case of the R class article, you deleted the entire contributions of one editor (who I understand is an active member of Steamrail), including completely factual and verifiable information on preservation history. You did the same to the K class article, deleting up-to-date preservation details. So if you're so keen on simply deleting rather than correcting or improving the edits that others have spent time and effort putting together, why should you expect others to respect your edits?

On a final note, last time I pointed out Wikipedia policies, how to cite references, and provided you with links to read up on them, you came back with a comment about not being able to understand them. If you can't understand them or don't agree with them, then just accept that when your edits are reverted or modified, it's most likely because your edits are contrary to these policies, and don't simply continually revert back to your edit.

Hope this helps explain things. - Zzrbiker (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Victorian Goldfields Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051103082659/http://www.mountalexander.vic.gov.au:80/Files/AnnualReport2004Part1.pdf to http://www.mountalexander.vic.gov.au/Files/AnnualReport2004Part1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)