MAbbey
Welcome!
Hello, MAbbey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Thanks for your edits on the Honda CB250N/CB400N page. When I stumbled on the page a few months ago it was just two weak paras. without infobox or images. So did what I could with it (one or two others have chipped in also) so help is always appreciated. Please remember to provide a reliable source for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it could be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. (I assume it was your recent post on the talk-page but it wasn't signed). If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Eagleash (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
CB250/400N edit
Hello MAbbey, Sorry but the performance figures recently added to the CB250/400 article have had to be removed. Unfortunately Mfrs' brochures are not considered to be reliable independent sources. (See WP:MC-MOS). These sorts of figures should always be attributed to a reliable independent source...e.g. road test from one of the more reputable mags etc. or Haynes type Manual, if the figures are included.
I would suggest that you might like to join WikiProject Motorcycling which has plenty of information on the necessary standards. Keep contributing.... all constructive edits welcome!!...Regards, Eagleash (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello MAbbey, thanks again for all your contribs. to the Honda Superdream article. Unfortunately you are correct in your comment in one of your edit summaries where you felt that it was over-detailed. WikiProject Motorcycling is specific in that colour and trim options aren't generally included...basically because they lack notability. Also it is not the convention to go into great technical detail of individual bikes, I.e. gear ratios etc. so detailed specifications of brake systems belong in a technical manual, but not in a 'general' encyclopedia. Please could you re-edit the article appropriately and it would be preferable if prose rather than a bullet-pointed list could be restored. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
References edit
- Hello MAbbey, multiple refs within a para are fine — as long as they come "one at a time", 2 at a pinch where necessary. When writing the citation it's not necessary to put a "ref name" in front of it unless the same ref. is used more than once. Then once you've put the ref name in front you can just put "<ref name="example"/>" where you want the additional refs. In normal circs. just open the in-line citation with "<ref>". If you haven't already seen it the guide to writing citations is here. Citations are normally written in line rather than column form so a bit of tweaking with the layout is required if you C & P the templates, till you get more used to using them. Eagleash (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest edits edit
Hi, If you have the info. available can you check the latest edit on the 250/400N page re ohv etc. here.The editor has a bit of 'history' and is not noticeably m/cycle involved. Ta. Good job on the 400T BTW. There's plenty more need looking at.:P (Click most of the related items on the pages you've already worked on). Eagleash (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words @Eagleash: I have to give you credit for helping me during what has been a steep learning curve. I will stick around, the resources I have found also cover other models, enough to keep me busy! As for the edit on the 250N/400N page I have checked the edit and although random it is right. OHC is the better definition compared to OHV. I'll update the CB400T article as well. MAbbey (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, I think the end product is better if editors try to encourage each other. Sometimes I think that people lose sight of what Wiki is and treat it like a "fight game" changing things for the sake of it to demonstrate their "superiority", while not contributing very much themselves. (Also watching pages until someone else does a lot of work to update them and then fiddling with them). (Something @Rocknrollmancer: alluded to on his talk page in the section "CD175"). It is a steep learning curve and huge amounts are still a mystery to me.
I've also read the message below and as mentioned on my talk-page a day or two ago the licensing requirements are something I'm not good at. I think it's safer only to upload images which are one's own work :P Eagleash (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Gooday - image File:Cheggy's Honda CB250T Image 1.jpg has been improperly added to Wikimedia Commons and you should anticipate this being flagged up for deletion, in which case you would get a 7-day notification. You cannot just copy an image from any site, adding to the blog with 'Hey Dude, I just put your image on Wikipedia. Yeah, Wicked!' It has to be much more formal licensing than that, with a verification email sent by the image owner, or on their behalf, by an experienced registered username. The email(s) and email addresses are held on a non-public secure server and are screened by trusted users at OTRS. They are often way-behind due to an ongoing-backlog, often 30 to 90 days or even longer. You cannot just state that it's been gifted to the Public Domain - this is a false statment you cannot make on another's behalf without an email verification. Neither can you use ebay messaging to 'beg' the use of image(s) seen in a sale listing - once again, it has to be formalised by email-proper from the ebay seller, the 'owner' of the original work. Also please note that images uploaded to Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons have to be freely available to all in the future, for any purpose including commercial re-use. This should be explained to any copyright-holder when requesting their co-operation in providing their image for use on a repository such as Wikimedia Commons. Images are often valuable for use in hard-published media, hence the use of icons and captions denoting copyright (©) and 'all rights reserved'. Also please be aware that images seen as uploaded to sites like Flickr may not be 'owned' by the username - Flickr is a largely-unregulated glorified blog and unreliable. Often they just add images and magazine pages, etc., to make themselves look 'cool'.
The image you added has already been flagged by a new-user bot, and would be subject to review in due course. We all appreciate you are a new user and not au-fait with this. The image will also be checked for other versions online, as it appears on the fansite you are a member of, pre-dating uploading to Commons
If you need more advice you can reply here. There are many things I don't know and you are right, it's a learning curve. I understand your enthusiasm, but I would recommend you undertake small changes to article text, not major re-writes to start with, perhaps adding to other Wikipedia existing articles that you may find info on in the publications to hand and not try to upload images that you have not taken yourself when you don't understand the licensing implications necessary with third-party sourcing. Maybe you'll now understand why there is a backlog in reviewing images!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Rocknrollmancer: Whilst you are absolutely right in what you say, licensing rules are really difficult for new editors — I.e. me (ish) (and even Snowman professed to not being good at them!). Which leads me on to another point. Whilst searching the twitter feed of one of my followers I found this. The twitter account is run by a Palace fan who also makes his living from selling football images. Although in this one he doesn't say in the tweet that it's for sale; I would think it must be part of his "stock". My point is...are we still OK to use this...Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think I have complied with all the requirements, but went for the largest size and tweaked the appearance; there is a bot which can take it down further. The image is on two Facebook pages at a large size (630 x 916) and we don't know whether they were just copied, sent by email gratis or bought. If he can prove he owns the rights to a 1968 image he could object and the powers-that-be would make a decision. I'm assuming the twitter man (shown as South London / Surrey) is the same as the source at Holmesdale.net, shown as Wallington. I've keyword searched and manually searched his site drop-down menus and there are no returns for any Danny Light images [1]; I found this comment interesting, though: "I sold this photo for £10, Now on EBay @ £49.99". (Ww2censor is active on Commons reviewing images)--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Rocknrollmancer: Whilst you are absolutely right in what you say, licensing rules are really difficult for new editors — I.e. me (ish) (and even Snowman professed to not being good at them!). Which leads me on to another point. Whilst searching the twitter feed of one of my followers I found this. The twitter account is run by a Palace fan who also makes his living from selling football images. Although in this one he doesn't say in the tweet that it's for sale; I would think it must be part of his "stock". My point is...are we still OK to use this...Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- PS I think MAbbey did OK on the 400T article. I moved it out of stub, to start & WW2 (etc) moved it up to B class.Eagleash (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Rocknrollmancer: Right, if you think it's OK that's fine by me :) Eagleash (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- PS I think MAbbey did OK on the 400T article. I moved it out of stub, to start & WW2 (etc) moved it up to B class.Eagleash (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of David Silver Spares Museum edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on David Silver Spares Museum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Don't give up on the article. We all know how useful David Silver Spares can be, but it doesn't necessarily equate to notability. Might possibly be best (if references are in short supply) to wait until the museum is established and some reports and reviews appear in reputable publications. Probably need to demonstrate that, when established, it offers something different to other similar enterprises. Eagleash (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you {{ping|Eaglesash} for the helpful and kind words. Just what I needed to dust myself off with. Whilst I believe the DSS museum is worth a page I do not disagree with the deletion. I was too hasty and should of waited like you said. I have expanded it a bit but as you pointed out references are a bit thin on the ground atm. At least I got the content restored, even if it was just to my user space· MAbbey (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Templated references edit
You might like to contemplate whether its a good idea to refactor the contributions of others into contrived template formats. I have been following your run-before-walk progress, including saving the page every couple of minutes (is there no 'preview' button on a mobile app?) which can adversely affect recent changes and page history. I had to remove this article from my watchlist where a one-time wonder had obsessively re-written, over-written and moved stuff around so many times in what was a originally a reasonable article I had contributed to. Potential conflict of interest here, one supposes. I expected your alteration to my contribution, and I will continue to use the same reference format as always. Wikis are about people (by the people, for the peoples, ie., peoples' contributions, of which the edit history is a required lasting record), not about homogenising and sanitising references at a later point to present what you might think is a 'prettier' effect in order to ultimately qualify for a potential accolade. The advice you were wisely given was to get the content correct, and not to ascribe undue importance to regimented appearance. Some editors are notorious for adding original research and slipping it in amongst allegedly correctly-cited stuff. This is why they're known as inline citations (WP:INTEGRITY) and not end-of-line, which does look messy but is often vital. Much of my time is wasted, spent trawling through edit histories to find out exactly where what I believe to be anomalies have been added and by whom, and then trying to correct and integrate new prose, distanced if necessary. I can wizz-down Usernames and citation styles based on past knowledge of their characterisitics, but not easily when they've been later altered. I only know one individual who obsessively goes through articles retroactively applying sfn - I watch for amusement - and one other editor on one article whom I have not followed up, so there may be others of the same ilk, but I would hazard a guess that mixed-format references by far outweigh any other contrived consequence.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK @Rocknrollmancer:, man you need to just breath and take a chill pill. Yes I have got stuck in and yes I have made mistakes. Doesn't Wikipedia promote the Be Bold slogan after all. I go back through any corrections and polite messages I get and are picking up the finer points of how to do things round here. Both times you have messaged me have had an aggressive overtones. I'm just a Dad of two small children who does this when I get a spare minute on my phone. The mobile app, small screen and lack of a keyboard make things harder but that's what tools I have to use. I apologise for the constant saving, I honestly thought that was acceptable from the small edits other users perform on this site. I also read the many help articles there are and what is policy varies a lot per page, per project and per individual. I only changed the citation style because I had seen that it's good to keep to the style used originally by the main contributor. It just feels like I'm getting a telling off even though the work produced is, I feel, of a pretty good standard for a relative beginner. MAbbey (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Quite correct. Indeed, the WP:CITEVAR guideline says explicitly that making an article's citation style more consistent is considered helpful. It's in inappropriate to tell other editors they may not "homogenise and sanitise my references", and the guideline says that homogenizing and sanitizing are exactly what the Wikipedia community would like do see. Calling a format an editor doesn't like "contrived" is a red herring. If it's one of the accepted citations styles, it's not contrived. Changes to citation style are done by discussion and consensus, and the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a valid part of that process. Any editor, new or old, who edits many articles or just one, has a right to make these kinds of changes. If Rocknrollmancer insists on using "his" preferred citation style on all articles in spite of the guidelines requiring consistency and respecting precedence, he should expect to have his changes reverted and has no one but himself to blame.
I've warned Rocknrollmancer regarding false ownership claims, and I'll only note that he has previously made very clear that he rejects the notion of collaborative editing, which is the very essence of what a Wiki is. He wishes only to edit alone, and is therefore perpetually frustrated. That is his problem, not Wikipedia's, and not yours. Your edits to the CB400F are great improvements, and there is nothing wrong with making mistakes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Quite correct. Indeed, the WP:CITEVAR guideline says explicitly that making an article's citation style more consistent is considered helpful. It's in inappropriate to tell other editors they may not "homogenise and sanitise my references", and the guideline says that homogenizing and sanitizing are exactly what the Wikipedia community would like do see. Calling a format an editor doesn't like "contrived" is a red herring. If it's one of the accepted citations styles, it's not contrived. Changes to citation style are done by discussion and consensus, and the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a valid part of that process. Any editor, new or old, who edits many articles or just one, has a right to make these kinds of changes. If Rocknrollmancer insists on using "his" preferred citation style on all articles in spite of the guidelines requiring consistency and respecting precedence, he should expect to have his changes reverted and has no one but himself to blame.
belated WikiProject invite edit
You are invited to join WikiProject Motorcycling. We work together to improve motorcycling related articles. We focus on things like the most popular motorcycling articles, recognizing and improving new articles, historically important motorcycles, and more. Please share your ideas, suggestions, and questions at WikiProject Motorcycling.
|
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Sorry this didn't come right away when you started contributing to motorcycling topics! Brianhe (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just noticed you joined a few hours ago. Cheers! Brianhe (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invite! @Eagleash: had invited me back in April whilst I was working on the Honda CB250N/CB400N article. Its his mentorship if you will that kept me here. Initially I was just going to edit the one page but seem to been bitten by the bug and stayed ever since! Thought I would take some time to get some more experience and read through the many, many help files first before signing up. Thanks for making me feel welcome. MAbbey (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Boomerang wheels edit
I stumbled on your cite tag on the 1100F page. Boomerang is a term I've heard or seen I think mainly from America...
A quick google and this Some links might help. Eagleash (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Motorcycle brakes edit
Hi, Hope you don't mind but I added a ref. and w/link to the draft re the CBX550F inboard brakes. (Feel free to re-format the ref. to your liking. Or whatever!!) :) Eagleash (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- No not all, I was struggling to find a ref for the inboard brakes. It never had occurred to use a Haynes manual and its actually a good source to expand it as well. I really do hope haven't gotten a reputation as a reference format control freak. I use the same style as you because it was your style that I first saw and have since adopted. I do prefer to use LDR in articles I create or have had a big contribution to. Using a mobile device is hard when there is lots of inline citations in the code! I also use the rp template as a means of verifying that I actually read the article referenced and for ease of going back over the article. I would only ever use this though if there has been no prior standard or editors have long been gone etc. But I don't want to be seen as forcing my style upon someone or something, especially if precedent had been set. Anyway, sorry for the ramblings, cheers - MAbbey (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well I followed GiantSnowman's style first off, (adapted it a bit), so I think it's OK. (Doesn't stop one particular editor fiddling with it — pointlessly in my view — every time I put up a new footy article though!!) Eagleash (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 6 June edit
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Draft:Motorcycle braking systems page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Award edit
|
Motorcycling award |
| To MAbbey, thanks for most productive engagement and collaboration on Motorcycle wheel. Cheers, Brianhe (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Draft:Piaggio Zip, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.cyclopaedia.es/wiki/Piaggio_Zip_4T.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Text was merged from the Piaggio Zip 4T page. I'll rewrite it to remove any issues. MAbbey (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I've been meddling again I'm afraid! Infobox images shouldn't be thumbed or otherwise forced (i.e given a px value) all to do with how the page displays given the font and image values of individual users.... apparently. :P I have some (very limited) info on the Zip 50 but not sure if it's the same version, as the tank capacity and wheelbase are different in the specs I have to those you have added so far. I won't add anything (else) unless you ask. Eagleash (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, seriously! I haven't got a clue when it comes to images and the image code was copied over from the 4t article which is a bit of a mess tbh. As for the infobox that just had stats copied from the other article as well for now. I have no idea where to begin with it because as you may have guessed, different engines means not only different engine specs but also different wheelbase etc. Your help is always appreciated by the way :) thanks - MAbbey (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ah...the 4t page is typical of many smaller bike articles...I've tried to tidy up quite a few of those! Back to this one. I can list the info I have here if you like (or start the talk page) and supply a good ref. (Haynes) for what I have, which isn't much really. And you can enter whatever you find useful. BTW started the WikiData item for the Comstar page (click the link in tools on the left of the page to see it). Eagleash (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes please, I haven't got a Haynes manual for the Zip so it would be much appreciated. The couple of paragraphs on the first few pages are referencing gold. Introduction dates would be great if it has them. A question for you; how would you present the technical data? The infobox template is going to get really cluttered with five models worth of figures. I'm thinking a table would be better but I have only a little experience with tables on here. MAbbey (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oh dear I fear I have misled you slightly. I have a Haynes manual which is in respect of twist and go scooters etc. generally (50 to 250cc). It has individual data pages for some of the major models, which is why I said I only had a very limited amount of info. It does give dry weight but no power data, and only the wheelbase in basic dimensions. It does has have some useful info. and I'll quite happily type it up for you. Let me know... Yes the i/bx will be a mess really, but I think there should be one with basic details, but a table does have a precedent at Vespa PX. Might get you started: C&P to sandbox and fiddle with it till it seems right? Eagleash (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, thank you for the Vespa link. I have chopped up the table to better fit the article's need. I have inputted as much data as I could using brochures from Piaggio Engine website. I'll type up the refs for these later. If you can add to it that would be great. Cheers, MAbbey (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, see you have moved the page into mainspace: Sorry for delay getting back, yesterday did not go as I planned. I have data pages for the "Piaggio Zip 50", "Piaggio Zip 50 SP" and "Piaggio Zip 125". As I say the info. is a bit limited but does confirm the dry weights (& some other stuff). I am not sure which model refers to which, in the table you created so have not added anything as yet. I notice the 50 SP is liquid cooled too. Eagleash (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I have expanded the table to include the Zip SP from both generations now. I couldn't think of a way to differentiate between the two generations. If you feel there is a way to make clearer please do :) thanks MAbbey (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's OK as it is when you read the table in conjunction with the text it's all clear. I have added a few bits ( not very much I'm afraid) but.... Have you thought about swapping the 2 images over? I think the one of the 50 is better and perhaps moving the secondary image down the page a bit so the text is not squeezed between it and the infobox...
- At the risk of sounding like a swot I have changed the belt final drive to gear final drive. The belt is part of the transmission. The clutch is connected to a reduction gear set which is connected to the rear wheel. OK, anorak off. Could I ask you to move the images, I use a phone to browse and the pages renders differently even on the "desktop" version.MAbbey (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's OK as it is when you read the table in conjunction with the text it's all clear. I have added a few bits ( not very much I'm afraid) but.... Have you thought about swapping the 2 images over? I think the one of the 50 is better and perhaps moving the secondary image down the page a bit so the text is not squeezed between it and the infobox...
Next up...what to do about the old 4t page. Basically it has been merged with this one so WP:MERGE may help establish necessary action. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have just read through the WP:MERGE page. Do we just go ahead or go through the correct procedure with merge templates? MAbbey (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think there would be no objection, basically you & I agree and I suspect Dennis and Brian have seen the discussion so yes we (you :P) can proceed as at WP:PROMERGE (Or Dennis is a whiz at this sort of thing!!) (I am not!!). OK I'll switch the images. I took the info re belt drive from the Haynes book mentioned but many of these (supposedly) belt drive small bikes do have reduction gears also. Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Right, just had a skim read of WP:PROMERGE. I think I can do it correctly. Will have a more in-depth read tomorrow as to make sure everything is done above board and no silly mistakes are made on my part. Thank you - MAbbey (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think there would be no objection, basically you & I agree and I suspect Dennis and Brian have seen the discussion so yes we (you :P) can proceed as at WP:PROMERGE (Or Dennis is a whiz at this sort of thing!!) (I am not!!). OK I'll switch the images. I took the info re belt drive from the Haynes book mentioned but many of these (supposedly) belt drive small bikes do have reduction gears also. Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Merge done! Hope everything is up to standard. I removed the both the WikiProject Brands and Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling banners from 4t talk page, assume there's no need for them to be on a redirect. There was no prior discussion on the 4t talk page so ommitted the merged from template on the Piaggio Zip Talk page. Hope all this was ok? MAbbey (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, I began the merge process myself and then found you had been working on it too! I have tagged the "new" talk page and placed the edit summary required on the new page also. I think it's been done OK. Good job!! (If not a bot or admin will point it out but it all makes sense as it stands..I think). Best Eagleash (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Giving SuggestBot a try edit
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
CB125TDC Superdream edit
Hi, No that's fine, I was going to ask you at some stage if you had anything. I've been wanting to do the CB125 for a while too, but I have a lot of other Wiki projects on the go. About a million years ago it basically came down to a choice between the CB and the CD125TC Benly when the 12hp law came in. (I bought the Benly...and never regretted it!). The CD and CM have articles but not the CB. Basically the same bike. Benly solid old commuter with dodgy handling, CM custom (sort of) and CB.. er "sport" (twin carbs and 5 speed and 1.5 more hp). Eagleash (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, just wanted to make sure it was ok to help. I have found Cycle World stats page for a CB125. I'm unclear as to whether the "CB125" moniker only applied to this one model. It gives an issue number presumably for a review. Off to go on the hunt... MAbbey (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have a Used Motorcycle Guide which lists other CB125 derivations. E.g. 125 S, CB 125 J and CB125 RS. This one (TDC) is the one that looks a bit like a baby CB250N and as you mention was restricted per the 125 law, after 1982 anyway. But as usual trying to figure out exactly which model mags etc. refer to can be a bit tricky.
Here's one on eBay Eagleash (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- That bike is quite a tidy example. Can't be many left around now. Would it sad to say that the clocks are the same as fitted to a CB250N?! Probably the only thing it shares other than the name. Last time I saw one was when an old friend asked if I could help get one from a breakers to run again. It did, sort of, when running on brake cleaner! The Cycle World article was a bust btw, that was only a single like the CB125RS. Will keep an eye out for more. MAbbey (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. just a quick one. I see you have entered that it has twin rear shocks. I have a copy of an advert that says it had the Unit-Pro single shock, another one that shows a CB125T2 with twin shocks. The eBay bike shock is not visible so assume it also has a single shock. This is going to be a fun one to get right. MAbbey (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are right about the rear suspension; IIRC it was one of the selling points over the other 125s at the time. However I'm at the sort of stage with it where I put stuff in and fiddle with it later...it comes together eventually. It took me 3 months or more to finish one earlier in the year...and that's one I own and I've got the manual. I know I had stuff on this one yonks ago, but several house moves & it could be anywhere Eagleash (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope you don't feel like I was trying to rush you. I've got a feeling that this bike is going to be a hard copy reference only job. Wish you the best! I'll keep a look out upon my travels too. MAbbey (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, MAbbey. 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)