Talk:Modelzone

Speedy Deletion

The company is one of the UK's largest model retailer.--TubularWorld (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

wrong links

Footnote links 7 & 8 do not lead to the described articles but unrelated Wikipedia articles.213.123.135.235 (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It appears to have been done deliberately, very odd. I reverted back to the last version with the references intact. Siawase (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interests

user "modelzone" banned. It appears as if a modelzone employee or someone with a close connection to modelzone is re-writing the article and removing contributions made by others. Article now monitored for automatic restoration after large changes by untrusted sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markfry55 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Article tidied up, citations added and templates removed

I shall be going back and checking for what has been removed by the above user, but I believe the article now to be of sufficient standard and editing that the templates are no longer required. If anyone believes otherwise and wishes to reinstate the templates, I have no objections to this taking place and am open to any suggestions for further work. I would like to declare that my significant other is an employee of the company, but that I do not believe that this places in me in conflict of interest as my primary aim is as anywhere else on Wikipedia - to create an impartial, high-quality article about the subject in question. I would also like to declare that I have no connection to the banned user. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues with the article

The last of my edits related to the above lasted less than an hour before being reverted with no reasons given, citations and all. Removal of and then commenting out of a contentious section was reverted with no explanation or justification given.

A couple of rationales for changes I have made:

• Discussions of individual people and their involvement should be cited appropriately; I have removed original research about one employee, who was named in only one of the three sources given - his LinkedIn profile.
• Social media (as above) and forum posts were used as citations. I have removed these in line with WP:USERGENERATED.

If anyone wishes to discuss these changes, I am more than happy to discuss it all here. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Material has again been reinstated by 2.103.221.75 without any discussion on this page, as requested here and in comments in the article itself (even removing the comments entirely). I have therefore posted on the dispute resolution noteboard to request assistance. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Tidy-up of article

I've removed several uncited statements in order to tidy the article up. I'm more than happy to add these back in with good citations.

"later reducing to 46 following closure of the Holborn store in early 2013, then briefly 47 again with opening of the New Oxford Street branch,"

"An example of one of these [former Beatties of London] stores is the one in the MetroCentre, Gateshead. Well over half of the chain's stores were in the south-east of England, and most stores were around 1200 square feet, with the largest of its stores having been in Birmingham at over 7000 square feet."

— Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC

I have been working on the article for a while, and believe that the subject is now settled enough and the article sufficient for further review. I prefer not to up-rate articles that I have worked on myself, so am looking for and would appreciate independent comment on the article in order to get it to B-class and potentially further. To clarify on conflict of interests: I am not a current or former employee of the company, but my signficant other and several of our friends are. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Reassessed as B-class. Note that this is just a cursory assessment, not a WP:Peer review. -- œ^™ 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modelzone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309223402/http://www.ukbusinesspark.co.uk/erp92067.htm to http://www.ukbusinesspark.co.uk/erp92067.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)