| Revision as of 08:15, 10 September 2008 editEveryme (talk | contribs)3,624 edits →Sceptre's talk page: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:59, 10 September 2008 edit undoSeth Whales (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,582 edits →A4232 road: CompromiseNext edit → | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
| ::::Please do not insert redundant and duplicated information into this article. I have asked the same of the other users involved. Thanks, ] (]) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC) | ::::Please do not insert redundant and duplicated information into this article. I have asked the same of the other users involved. Thanks, ] (]) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| === Compromise === | |||
| Hi Ian13, | |||
| I am prepared to compromise for a ] and last time, on this article. I am prepared to change the junction names from say "Culverhouse Cross Interchange" to just "Culverhouse Cross" and "St Fagans slip road" to "St Fagans" etc.throughout the infoboxes on the condition that: | |||
| a. ] (or his/her ]) does not revert the above edit ''and'' never edits any part of ] again. ] (]) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 09:59, 10 September 2008
|
|
Notice of request for deletion of editor Ian13 :)
Ian13, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Ian13 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Words fail me. Ian¹³/t 13:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Reverted B roads
Hello Ian13
As an administrator with an interest in the UK roads project, can you please see what you can do about the Articles B1436 road, B1149 road and B1156 road. An editor using only an IP address seems intent on reverting these pages back to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme and then he/she has, in the past, places warning templates on my talk page. I have left notability notes on Article talk page but these seem not to be enough for this editor to leave these pages to stand alone. These actions seem to be rather disruptive and seem to go against constructive contributions made to improve road information on Misplaced Pages. Please let me know if you think that these pages are not worth keeping and I will no longer try to contribute to them and they can be assigned to the electronic paper basket. Your opinion will be very much appreciated. stavros1 ♣
- I should answer some points here. There is a clear consensus that the subjects at hand are not notable, and therefore not worthy of their own entries. There seems to be no indication from User:Stavros1 on there being multiple, independent, reliable sources to support their claim to the contrary. The user then made comments on talk pages and in edit summaries that slighted other contributors, and was reminded that our policy was to focus on content. They ignored this and made further comments as to the character of other contributors, including accusing participants at WP:UKRD of "road snobbery". I made an attempt to point out to the user that their actions were bordering on disruption, at which point they decided to remove all doubt by ranting about the attitudes of other contributors on three talk pages, including copying and pasting entire sections of policy pages into discussions. I also note the personal comments above. I hope this clears up why the user was warned for disruption. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have been keeping an eye on this dispute since another user warned me of it (above). The clear consensus you speak of seems more opaque: there seems to be users on both side of the debate. Redirecting to a non-equivalent page is similar to deleting it, and thus seems like the sort of action which requires debate - but on a talk page, not through reverts. At Talk:B1156 road, some discussion has occurred and issues raised have not been addressed. It seems reasonable to me that the page content should remain in its former state until decided otherwise. With regards to references, the pages have 1, 3 and 1 references (respectively), and any bias claims could be resolved in ways other than effectively removing all the content. The copying and pasting of content to multiple discussions, whilst not necessarily wholly called for, they were all places where the discussion was occurring, so WP:AGF certainly doesn't make me think it was disruptive. User talk page templates are designed for cases where disruption is clear, otherwise a friendly note is usually more appropriate. I can't spot these attacks you speak of, but I am happy to comment if you link me to the appropriate page diff. There isn't much more to say about this debate, but I can only advice you both (although this likely applies more to 217.36.107.9 given previous edits) to make use of the article talk pages, and assume good faith. Ian¹³/t 12:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick response to my communication. I note all your comments and would be more than pleased to enter into a debate about these pages. I had tried in the past to put my point of view across to the editor, but the user in question seems to think that I had been to strong in my criticism of his actions and tagged my talk page accordingly. I can only apologies to the editor if he felt I was not treating his actions in good faith, but he/she has failed to join into any constructive debate other than to say that the comments I had placed on the pages talk page were, in his/her opinion not valid, with no suggestion of what he/she thought would make these pages notable. In any case reverting the pages because he/she had decided for themselves that the article content was not notable is, as has been mentioned in other debates a form of deletion without consensus. I certainly regret getting into a reversion war with this editor as it is really a waste of both our times.. stavros1; ♣
- Good. (As an aside, is there a reason your signature lacks a timestrap? ~~~ gives the signature, ~~~~ signature and time, ~~~~~ time.) Ian¹³/t 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As I have made clear, I shall stop reverting the page when User:Stavros1 and accomplices stop recreating them. The situation is clear - we need multiple, independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the route's notability. It's mere presence on a map does not. In any case, use of a map as a source would constitute WP:OR, since it involves joining the dots. I am bemused as to how you have some to the strange conclusion that I am causing the disruption here. If you need evidence of the contrary, . 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Calling someone 'Mr Anonymous' is indeed inappropriate in that case. However, people can get a little annoyed when they find their page is repeatedly reverted and the user doesn't discuss on the talk page. Your posting of a POINT message when in a dispute with that user can be seen as inappropriate, or even making a POINT yourself. This clearly is not a clear-cut content removal, because people are objecting. My recommendation to you would, if you can't reach a compromise, be to take the article to AfD (quite commonly, these end with the decision of redirect). Regarding this, if a little offhand, at least the user is trying to address why he thinks the deletion should stop. (This seems inappropriate to the discussion.) However, saying you will stop reverting when your page version is preserved is unconstructive: this isn't about succeeding, it is about improving the encyclopedia, and in disputes, the original version generally holds until discussion deems otherwise - otherwise, your editing is disruptive. Ian¹³/t 15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely how is flat out branding people as "completly unresonable and is disruptive", making legalistic text-dumps from guidelines, and accusing editors in good standing of "suffer from some sort of Road snobbery" acceptable behaviour? User:Stavros1 has neither apologised, nor given any hint that they would refrain from such in future. Most importantly of all, redirection is not deletion. This discussion cannot continue until you accept this fact. I cannot be constantly reminding administrators of things that they should already know. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- To a reader, redirection is effectively the same as deletion given the loss of content observed: both actions are reversible, and prevent (in passing) reading of pre-existing content. Ian¹³/t 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely how is flat out branding people as "completly unresonable and is disruptive", making legalistic text-dumps from guidelines, and accusing editors in good standing of "suffer from some sort of Road snobbery" acceptable behaviour? User:Stavros1 has neither apologised, nor given any hint that they would refrain from such in future. Most importantly of all, redirection is not deletion. This discussion cannot continue until you accept this fact. I cannot be constantly reminding administrators of things that they should already know. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Calling someone 'Mr Anonymous' is indeed inappropriate in that case. However, people can get a little annoyed when they find their page is repeatedly reverted and the user doesn't discuss on the talk page. Your posting of a POINT message when in a dispute with that user can be seen as inappropriate, or even making a POINT yourself. This clearly is not a clear-cut content removal, because people are objecting. My recommendation to you would, if you can't reach a compromise, be to take the article to AfD (quite commonly, these end with the decision of redirect). Regarding this, if a little offhand, at least the user is trying to address why he thinks the deletion should stop. (This seems inappropriate to the discussion.) However, saying you will stop reverting when your page version is preserved is unconstructive: this isn't about succeeding, it is about improving the encyclopedia, and in disputes, the original version generally holds until discussion deems otherwise - otherwise, your editing is disruptive. Ian¹³/t 15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As I have made clear, I shall stop reverting the page when User:Stavros1 and accomplices stop recreating them. The situation is clear - we need multiple, independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the route's notability. It's mere presence on a map does not. In any case, use of a map as a source would constitute WP:OR, since it involves joining the dots. I am bemused as to how you have some to the strange conclusion that I am causing the disruption here. If you need evidence of the contrary, . 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good. (As an aside, is there a reason your signature lacks a timestrap? ~~~ gives the signature, ~~~~ signature and time, ~~~~~ time.) Ian¹³/t 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick response to my communication. I note all your comments and would be more than pleased to enter into a debate about these pages. I had tried in the past to put my point of view across to the editor, but the user in question seems to think that I had been to strong in my criticism of his actions and tagged my talk page accordingly. I can only apologies to the editor if he felt I was not treating his actions in good faith, but he/she has failed to join into any constructive debate other than to say that the comments I had placed on the pages talk page were, in his/her opinion not valid, with no suggestion of what he/she thought would make these pages notable. In any case reverting the pages because he/she had decided for themselves that the article content was not notable is, as has been mentioned in other debates a form of deletion without consensus. I certainly regret getting into a reversion war with this editor as it is really a waste of both our times.. stavros1; ♣
- Is the assumption that I am supposed to have accomplices? Made by 217.36.107.9 in his comments above, an example of what he calls a personnel attack. I have no accomplices and unless the user has any evidence to the contrary I would hope he/she would withdraw this accusationStavros1 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A4232 road
Hello again Ian13
I would like to point you again, in the direction of 217.36.107.9 who seems to be engaging in another edit war concerning the article A4232 road. I know this may seem like telling tales but I think these editorial confrontations are getting to be a bit more than coincidences. stavros1 ♣ 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours for breach of 3RR. Thanks, Ian¹³/t 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ian13,
- 217.36.107.9 appears to be at it again. I feel like we are in the same situation as before this user was blocked. I have not reverted the users edit as I have better things to do than keep reverting this users vandalism all the time. The user has put no summary to the edit or replied to on Talk:A4232 road. I'll just leave it to you. Seth Whales (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Warned again. Ian¹³/t 18:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please do not insert redundant and duplicated information into this article. I have asked the same of the other users involved. Thanks, 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Compromise
Hi Ian13,
I am prepared to compromise for a second and last time, on this article. I am prepared to change the junction names from say "Culverhouse Cross Interchange" to just "Culverhouse Cross" and "St Fagans slip road" to "St Fagans" etc.throughout the infoboxes on the condition that:
a. 217.36.107.9 (or his/her sock puppet) does not revert the above edit and never edits any part of A4232 road again. Seth Whales (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Line and Strength
Hi, not only was this an article on a book, and thus not eligible for A7, it was also a notable book that I was in the process of fixing the article up for. Request that you restore it so that I can continue expanding the article. Lankiveil 10:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC).
- My bad. Obviously working away too vigorously here. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 10:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- No worries, we all make mistakes. Plus, your speedy clearing of the speedy backlog means I can do some article building instead of janitorial work =). Lankiveil 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC).
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
- Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
- Your contributions are also welcome at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Alabama Great Southern Railroad
Is there any way to speed up the process and move Talk:Alabama Great Southern Railroad/Temp, or do I need to wait a week? --NE2 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- The page was created (almost 3 years ago!) as a copyvio, and has gone largely unchanged, so was valid for immediate deletion under CSD G12. However, I held off, and instead posted a full copyvio notice to encourage its recreation. Given this has happened, I am more than happy to go ahead and move it. I must say, excellent work. You have made a useful article from nothing in a very short time.
- While I'm talking to you, your User:NE2/valuations/Alabama Great Southern Railroad page concerns me. It appears to be public domain, which is fine, however sometimes, copyright can be claimed from the transcription. I'm no expert in this field, but if you didn't type it up from the book, or a faithful image of the page, I think it may need to be deleted.
- Cheers, Ian¹³/t 18:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a direct copy-paste from the transcription; where possible I used the page images, and otherwise I corrected OCR errors. The text is as it was published by the ICC. --NE2 18:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's cool. Just wanted to make sure. Good work :) Ian¹³/t 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a direct copy-paste from the transcription; where possible I used the page images, and otherwise I corrected OCR errors. The text is as it was published by the ICC. --NE2 18:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Nek
Thank you for In Due cover.
Oleg N (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, Ian¹³/t 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre's talk page
What was the reason to move the past three days of comments on Sceptre's talk page to that archive page? Now that the talk page is blanked there's no hint at that archive and the edits are not in the history of the talk page either. Was there any particular reason to hide those last 3 days of comments like that? user:Everyme 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)