Talk:Victorian Railways R class

	Trains Portal
DYK	2006-12-25

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Australia: Victoria / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Victorian Railways R class is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

To whoever it is who keeps deleting preservation information out of this article...[edit]

You may think you are "improving" the article by removing a lot of information that other editors have spent significant time editing and providing references for. Personally, I think you're vandalising the article.

Can I suggest that rather than simply reverting back your edits yet again, you take the time to explain why you think your edits are warranted and allow others to comment.

Zzrbiker (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still learning[edit]

Given I have only just figured out how to use the talk page, think its safe to say I don't know how or why to cite a reference on this page. My additions have been factual and true through out, it is quite easy to trace these for yourself for the most through websites and books. Some small portions come straight from my memory as I have had some form of experience with a certain engine/s or group.

So apologies for "vandalising" all these pages, but in my opinion the layout is crap for most and info is either outdated or not 100% true. Or what I did remove was replaced with different wording to suit my additions.

Last time I try and share or add to a wiki page, sod off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.191.125 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know "how or why to cite a reference"? How about because it's supposed to be an encyclopedia? See WP:V. Think the layout is crap? You hardly improved it by ripping out referenced material and leaving the article with error messages. Did you not notice? As for your comment that "it is quite easy to trace these for yourself", why should everyone else have to do your work for you and try and figure out where you got your information from? See WP:CITE. And as for your final "sod off" dummy spit - look up WP:NPA. Zzrbiker (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telling you to sod off isn't a personal attack, its telling you to sod off. Simple. If I can work out the bloody citing stuff (rather than help me out, just link me to pages I don't understand, thats fine) and when I can edit the pages again, I'll do it properly. But I am sorry, all this seems to come down to you think you are right and vice versa. I have noticed you make most contributions to alot of pages I edited, but sadly whether it was your additions or not, there was a lot of badly worded or outdated information.

Having static exhibits in the same section as operational? A bit messy wouldn't you say? This is just one example, anyway, there is more to life than this website (thats all it is, no one should take it seriously or use it for any real life work references etc) so I am happy to leave it at that until that auto lock thingy ends. Until then, sod off:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.191.125 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit for R711[edit]

Can we please leave this edit as is Zzrbiker? I cannot cite what is not publically available. You may have guessed by now I have involvement with certain groups and as such I have access to information the general punter does not. I have changed the paragraphs around a little to suit the addition, but I assure you said additions are 100% factual at current time. Thanks.210.50.228.4 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Anon210.50.228.4 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? I like trains i like trains (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Victorian Railways R class. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for https://aib-cms.co.uk/sites/raib/cms_resources.cfm?file=/140616_R132014_Winchfield.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]