Mangoeater2

edits to STP and SHRC pages

Thanks for your comments, and those on Ozdarrens page - Your own comments suggest biase, perhaps from the perspective of the SHRC crew/camp to which you alude.

the article has been writen based on evidence in the media, publications, and from discussions with people involved. I have used only referenced material. If you see a psin on that, then, sorry, that is how it is reported.

Suggest you dig back through the copies of the various steamtown magazines (two full sets exist in the public- state library and at Peterborough). you will see that from Day two, the viability of the organisation in Peterborough was in doubt.

If you have references to support your opinion, please use them in the articles. Thanks Sulzer55 (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comments to Sulzer55 talk page

Reversed Sulzer55 's removal of "also just known as "Steamtown" or "Steamtown Peterborough"" as this is what the SHRC is commonly known as today. Hence my attempts at editing the sites and adding hats to try to disambuguify the situation (which Sulzer55 has strongly resisted). Removing the references to what the SHRC is commonly known as today does not change the fact that this is what the SHRC is commonly known as. Mangoeater2 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments on my page

Dazza - if you have comments on the changes I have made to the pages, please post them on the discussion page - the second tab from the left, so others can read them - just like I have commented on my changes on the pages thanks. Sulzer55 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SPRPS reverts

Dazza - I will be reverting your changes to the SPRPS page, as you continue not to advise why you have done them, on the attached discussion page. Pedantic, yes, but I am learning from a MasterSulzer55 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck

Thanks for your comments.

The comment ("defunct railway society in a dying town") was to imply that I have other priorities than arguing with you over words on the net. If I need someone to tell me what I am thinking, I am sure I can find a qualified therapist close by.

Whilst it is easy for you to make such assumptions, I have no ill feelings toward the SHRC, or the demise of Steamtown (other than great sadness that a fantastic opportunity has been lost). Perhaps what you are reading is my frustration at the constant attacks and criticisms of the work that has been done here on wiki to reflect the history of both STP and the museum, as accurately as can be, with the information available.

Like I have said before, and you have reflected in your comments, the squabbling, bullying and white-anting within Peterborough is what killed SPRPS, and will be what kills the SHRC. I am seeing evidence of this behaviour in the responses being provided on these pages.

In relation to the tour guide, it was one other party on the tour, not me; although I was choking back comments, despite the patent errors. Rather than attack me for a flippant (and perhaps not well-considered) comment, it may be an opportunity for you to take on board the need to ensure your volunteers are given clear guidance as to what to say, how to say it, and what the general history of the facility (and what is in there) may be. This may already be in train. What I have seen consequential to this visit (a few years ago) suggests an increasing degree of professionalism. My experience in dealing with other SHRC staff seems to support this.

Sadly much of the material in relation to the demise of SPRPS and the creation of SHRC appears to have been either shrouded in secrecy (at worse) or has not been appropriately recorded for whatever reason (at best), so we may never know the full story; Wading through the spin by all parties is almost impossible.

Good luck with the pages.

I would appreciate, however, that if you wish to continue to make personal attacks, you do it via my talk pages, as you already seem to be doing, Sulzer55 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sulzer - yes training is in place for the guides to increase consistency between them.

I am not trying to attack you (initially I felt enraged at your blanket reversals of all my entries and so yes it would have seemed that I was attacking you) but I feel that things have calmed down now. Your comments above tend to support that.

I hope that your statement "Good luck with the pages" is not you removing yourself from the editing process. Your input (wording and references) has been most welcome. Unlike your reversals! LOL

I have just tried to remove what I have seen as 'Bias" in the articles - my current edit (about to be done) is to change the sentence in "The End" where you have said that the Council had started the process to "dispose" of property (this wording hints at selling off the property to the reader) to something like "had already begun the process of implementing the Vesting of Property Act 1986" - which is what they had done - a much different statement - but still agrees with your original comment.

I agree with your comments about the history of the demise of the SPRPS - a book (warts and all) would make fascinating reading, but would probably leave the author open to being sued from all directions. LOL

I hope to work together with you on these pages in the future (not against you).

I have already apologised somewhere for my behaviour and assuming that your comments above are a sort of apology on your part.

This has been a learning experience for me. I hope you have also learnt from the experience (don't just jump in and reverse someone's editing - start with <citation needed> or at least try a better explanation than just "assuming vandalism" - I would have reacted very differently from the beginning if this had been done).

We can work together.

Mangoeater2 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)