| Revision as of 12:31, 3 October 2008 editEdJogg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,180 edits →No personal attacks: reply to Olana← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:17, 6 October 2008 edit undoOlana North (talk | contribs)2,155 edits ←Replaced content with 'This user has decided that Wikipedians who are disruptive get treated more fairly than those that behave themselves. Accordingly, this user no longer wishes to ...'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| This user has decided that Wikipedians who are disruptive get treated more fairly than those that behave themselves. Accordingly, this user no longer wishes to be a part of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:{{{article|}}}|, especially what you did for ]|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:{{{1|}}}|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question and then place <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> ] (]) 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello and, er, welcome, and thanks for your nice comments about the MN article. It is the camaraderie that results from the close collaboration between editors on an article that I enjoy most about WP. But to get a Main Page FA is just the icing on the cake! | |||
| :] (]) 10:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == FLUA == | |||
| OK, i've given a reply about the cleanup. You can still comment for keeping it at ]. My main concerns were that nothing had been done about it and its notability. ] (]) 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your comments at ] == | |||
| Hi, regarding your posts regarding the miles/chains debate at ], you made is bordering on the unacceptable. I appreciate your point of view, but the post fails to ], and questioning another editor's level of intelligence and describing them as "ignorant" is not very ] and is possibly even verging on a ]. Dont say I didn't warn you. Thanks, --] (]) 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I stand by my comments, when placed in the context of the total discussion on the page. Lucy, IMHO, has demonstrated her attitude to the issue of distances units, and my use of the word "ignorant" is fully justified. You seem quick to judge me as ] yet slow to acknowledge Lucy's ]. The issue of ]is not relevant in this case as Lucy has raised this issue before, and the result was pretty much the same as you see today. This is the reason why I and SouthernElectric are able to raise ] as the heated debate that has been generated is exactly what happened previously, and Lucy was the instigator of the debate then, the same as she was now. ] (]) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Just because a particular user has a record of being a nuisance doesn't mean that if they raise a valid point it shouldn't be addressed. Concentrate on the issue, not the contributor, whatever you might think of them. | |||
| :: For the record, I am pefectly aware that this issue has been discussed before: I was a participant in the debate on that occasion as well as this. --] (]) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello... == | |||
| I get a strange feeling that I know you from someplace but if I do, I can't for the light of me remember! ] (]) 11:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sure it's just a coincidence, SE. WP can be merciless towards those that manipulate ], and it creates such ill-feeling among everyone involved. ] (]) 12:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::See further below. ] (]) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Banning of users == | |||
| Not really my place to say, but I believe the ban imposed on SouthernElectric was a result of edits on ] as discussed ] rather than the metric discussion... ] (]) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note that SouthernElectric wasn't banned, he was blocked, and only for 24 hours. See ] and ] for clarification. --] (]) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Just so you know, Lucy Marie is a bully on every topic in which she has declared herself the arbitrator of what is acceptable and what is not. Her thuggery is nothing new. If she can't win an argument, she'll do her best to bully users into leaving, trick themselves into getting banned, or find some admin who is willing to go along with her behavior. When none of this happens, she simply declares herself to be right and goes on about destroying whatever articles are currently in her sights. --] (]) 20:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Southern Electric has now been deleted. he has now gone.....for good. (Unless he comes back as another username- but we will never know! ] (]) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===RFC=== | |||
| Would you support me in an ] regarding lucy-marie? Feel free to reply onto my talk page. ] (]) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == London Waterloo == | |||
| I am sick and tired of your imperious behaviour. I have absolutely had enough of you. Please cease your disruption. ] (]) 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : No, I shall not until your behaviour improves to the minimum level expected on Misplaced Pages, and which you currently fail to meet. ] (]) 13:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I expect you like any other user to behave yourself. You currently are on probation by me and I expect you to soon meet the criterion for an adult's attitude. ] (]) 18:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Inspector Sands== | |||
| HI I EDITED INSPECTOR SAND AND I THINK THAT THE "INCORRECTLY SUGGESTED" IS OPINIONATED, SO WHY IS THAT SO BAD? IT IS THE CASE, AS I HAVE SEEN MYSELF, THE INSPECTOR SANDS IS ANNOUNCED AND THEN LT AUTHORTIES CAME AND REMOVED A BAG. | |||
| : Any discussion of this article should be held on the talk page. ] (]) 08:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandals== | |||
| *Well it seems we've encountered the same vandal. You would think people would have better things to do than vandalise pages, but apparently not. Do you want to take care of this user? I'm kind of gaining some experience in this whole Anti-Vandalism thing. ] (]) 08:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==List of LB&SCR A1 class locomotives== | |||
| Only low importance? i would have thought this would be mid importance given the longevity of the class and the fact that 20% survive in preservation. Would you reconsider the importance rating please? I'll not change it myself though, that would be unfair. ] (]) 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I was applying my principle that if it does not have a rating, then assign it as low. Anyhow, I have changed the UK importance to "mid" having done a little research. To be honest, the article does not do the loco any favours. Someone has spent a lot of time and effort detailing the details of each locomotive, but the article has no references and has no history. In other words any notability that this loco has is absent from the article. I would do it myself, but I am not an expert in early steam locos. ] (]) 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for reassessment. The list is meant to be a supplement to the ] article, covering all 50 members of the class and giving a brief history of each locomotive. It does not particularly concentrate on any single locomotive. I'm not sure what you mean about the references. Admittedly there are only two sources, but over 40 references from those two sources. As for the history, I created the article in my sandbox over the last week or so. The inspiration for this article was the ] article. As the LBSC locos were the original A1s, I thought they deserved their own article! ] (]) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I most sincerely apologise. I need to read things before putting my paws to the keyboard. I did not see the big hint "LIST" at the top of the page. Having read the main article, I concede that the loco deserves a "mid" importance ... but does a list of the individual engines merit the same rating? Perhaps you ought to enlist a second opinion. Perhaps you could ask for others views on the page. Cheers. ] (]) 15:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == User query == | |||
| Are you related to ]? ] (]) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Awwww, I'm sure it's just a coincidence ;o) -- ] (]) 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: He's my brother, but he doesn't use Misplaced Pages that often. ] (]) 20:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mapping Data== | |||
| OS Mapping Link | |||
| {{gbmappingsmall|TQ288352}} - Maidenbower | |||
| {{gbmappingsmall|TQ303308}} - Handcross Road | |||
| {{gbmappingsmall|TQ328264}} - Copyhold Jn | |||
| {{gbmappingsmall|TQ324219}} - Folly Hill | |||
| {{gbmappingsmall|TQ311174}} - Burgess Hill | |||
| ==Great Eastern Mainline== | |||
| The secion on the electification of the Great Eastern Mainline is very poorly sourced. I was just pointing out it was also wrong. Thanks for not patronising me, I'm sure I'm at least as aware of Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies as you are.--] (]) 07:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Pressure conversions== | |||
| Thanks for your comments, I take it you've also seen the discussion on the WP:Trains talk page too. I appreciate that we are mostly talking of a historical measurement rathern than a modern one, but if someone quoted a boile pressure in Pascals to me I wouldn't have a clue. I'm quite happy with lb/in<sup>2</sup>, but I've been creating articles on minor French railways where it is quite common to see kg/cm<sup>2</sup> quoted. Why shouldn't a French reader have a conversion that they understand if they look at an article about a British or American steam locomotive. We convert feet and inches to metres, and miles to kilometres, don't we? ] (]) 19:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Basic facts are not protected by copyright, and the same information would be available from a number of sources, so a link to Trackmaps is borderline linkspam given the site seems to exist for little purpose other than to sell their books. If you feel it absolutely necessary to identify Quail as a source, use {{tl|cite book}} with publication details (ideally including the ISBN). ] (]) 18:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : If we apply your argument, then almost every reference to a book publisher oculd also be classed as "borderline linkspam" for the same reason that you claim ... "they exist for little purpose other than to sell their books". Ian Allan is widely referenced for transport books, are you claiming that every link to their site is also spam? I reject your argument, and will reinstate the link to the Quail Maps site. ] (]) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, if you apply my argument, you get no such thing. We don't reference book publisbhers. Ever. We reference the ''books themselves''. We also don't generally include attribution for every bit of public-domain information we include in articles. As I have said, you can use the cite template to identify the book if you are including any original information, but there is already a well-established precedent that we don't add ''attribution'' links in articles. ] (]) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to ] other editors{{#if:|, as you did on ]}}. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> ] (]) 20:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :"''Undid a confused edit '''by an unregistered editor'''.''" amounts to playing the man instead of the ball, as it is a comment on the ]. Please keep ] relevant in future. ] (]) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Dammn == | |||
| I struggle to maintain civility? Maybe you should rack your brains and tell over users off! ] (]) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| "User is not fully conversant in the "five pillars", and struggles to maintain civility" thanks a lot! ] (]) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Profuse apologies == | |||
| For the personal attacks, I hope we can solve the dispute between us both. ] (]) 15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: London Underground == | |||
| I actually based the reversion on the user's yesterday, so I don't see an apology to him/her in my future. - ] / ] 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please, go ahead. - ] / ] 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Olana North, I think your points (about vandalism, ] and ]) are valid, you may have been overreacting slightly. To borrow a phrase, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Thanks, --] (]) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == UK stas == | |||
| Some lists do not have "List of" at the start, not just these but yes they could. ] (]) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| -Derby == Liskeard railway station == | |||
| See answer on my talk page. ] (]) 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==cross country route== | |||
| Surprised you have demoted the cross country route from mid to low... Reasons? Bob aka ] (]) 07:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : In the larger picture of railways worldwide, I took the view that it was less important than that which the UK would view it as. If you feel differently, then I suggest you change it back to mid ... with reasons :-) ] (]) 07:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah yes I was forgetting the world context - but historically, I was told, it did used to be the busiest freight line in the UK and was 'pencilled in' for electrification. Probably the most likely route outside those to/from London to deserve a 'mid' rating?. Though I notice it's not on the new list of 5 possible TGV routes (even the Sheffield-Derby- Bristol bit... ] (]) 09:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mac== | |||
| Hi Olana.. | |||
| I've been following NJGW's talk page since noticing the suspected sockpuppet page he started on Mac. Mac came to my attention after moving a chunk of information from the ] page to a new ] page. There were several issues with this. There was no reasoning left for the move and the moved content was important to the original page. The new article was also named in an unconventional way. Why move important content to the wrong place I ask myself? Anyways, the info was restored but it was again removed by nopetro yesterday. I've done some digging and here's what I found: This all ties into the suspected sockpuppet page NJGW started. Can you comment? ] (]) 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RE ] == | |||
| Hi, the Merseyrail network is in fact 750v DC and has been since about 1979/early 80s when the 507s and 508s were introduced as they are 750v only. Before this however it was indeed 650v as this was the specification of the Class 502s and 503s used back then. I've updated the article and given 2 references. | |||
| You should also check out these articles with details about the electrification used, | |||
| ] <br> | |||
| ] <br> | |||
| ] <br> | |||
| ] <br> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] (]) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == What are your assessment criteria? == | |||
| Do you ''really'' think ] is a stub-class article? Surely at the very least it is start-class, or even, dare I say, C-class? If, on reflection, you still insist it is stub-class, can you tell me how it falls short of being start-class? --] (]) 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Please stay ], and I shall explain. My current purpose in life is to give all articles that do not have an assessment an initial rating or either "stub" or "start" I gave the article a "stub" rating rather than a "start" rating as it has very few articles that link to it. To be fair, it is probably good enough to rate "start" (and I have amended it so), but I think it might need more content to make it "C". You say that you cannot assess your "own article". My response is that you can, and that you are by presently (by admission) in violation of ]. The need for independent assessment of an article does not start till it reaches "A-Class" from reading the assessment criteria. I recall your somewhat negative reaction when I made a request to have a "bot" assess an un-assessed articles, so I am doing it by hand. Thanks for your interest. ] (]) 12:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I thought I was being entirely civilised, sorry if that didn't come across. By using the phrase "own article" I wasn't making any claim of ownership, merely indicating that I thought it improper to assess my own contribution. I should have said "contribution" instead of "article". That having been said, I find it strange that the quality of an article should depend on how many other articles link to it. It is inevitable that a newly-created article will have few links, so I thought this article was doing quite well. Anyway, no hard feelings and thanks for your prompt reassessment! --] (]) 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thameslink== | |||
| RE: Class 317s, I noticed that someone had recently deleted the part that said FCC had 317s on the Thameslink route (the revision on the 21st August), this was news to me so I rang FCC to ask them, they said they still use them. Sorry I don't have any other reference. | |||
| There is no reason I can think of why they would have stopped using them yet, they might stop using them in when the Moorgate branch is cut off I would think but that's not till next year. ] (]) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Commented out an award received from an editor who considers Andy Mabbett to be a friend | |||
| == Railway barnstar == | |||
| ] (]) 11:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)]] | |||
| I think you deserve one of these, if only for perseverance! (first one I've ever given) Now you can get on with the more enjoyable task of getting the articles up to scratch. | |||
| Cheers -- ] (]) 11:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : That's very decent thing of you to do. Thank very much, kind sir. I have to admit the support of others (unknown), but it has been a task that I wanted to see "got rid of". Thanks again. If nothing else, its safer than editing in main space ;-) ] (]) 06:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| --> | |||
| == swift rail == | |||
| Hi | |||
| I'm new on Misplaced Pages and I don't really understand the rules. However, I do understand that people who pretend to be people who don't exist are probably bad guys. "James Riise" of Pipeline Radio (or Swift Rail) has a lousy pedigree in the UK, many false ID's and a long history of bogus companies. He also seems to be very interested in young boys. Is Olana North still in favour of Mr. Riise? | |||
| ] (]) 23:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I think that before you continue any further on Misplaced Pages that you spend some time learning and understanding the rules. The "Five Pillars" are the basic ones that you need to know. In terms of your statement above, the first thing that you need to be aware of is that libel laws still apply. Please provide facts/soruces/references to back-up your claims about Mr Riise. The second thing is that just because you don't like someone, or that a person is bad, does not mean that they are not notable nor unworthy of being included on Misplaced Pages. If there are facts to substantiate what you have said, you have make Mr Riise notable. There are a lot of articles on Misplaced Pages about people who have done worse crimes against humanity that Mr Riise could ever dream about. ] (]) 06:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == delinking of dates == | |||
| Dear Olana, I noticed your post at Lightmouse's talk page. Can youo please explain what was wrong with the delinking of the autoformatting? British formatting was retained, correctly, and MOSNUM now deprecates autoformatting. ] ] 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I guess the primary reason was that I was not aware of this change of policy. Having read the talk page I remain unconvinced that is has consensus, and thirdly, I see no reason to de-link as a matter of rote. But if a bot's gotta to do what a bot's gotta do, then I guess thats that. I like other find Lightmouse's attitude less than what might be expected. ] (]) 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == No personal attacks == | |||
| are prohibited on Misplaced Pages. Please read and understand ], and desist from making them. Thank you. ] (User:Pigsonthewing); ]; ] 07:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I too thought your Project-page comment was unwarranted. | |||
| :It ''is'' possible for people to change, or at least to learn from previous mistakes, .... isn't it? (pot, kettle,...??) | |||
| :] (]) 07:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Apparently not in the case of the above editor. Since being un-blocked in August a further two block have been issued against him, and he has an open case on the Admins noticeboard for disruptive behaviour see here . So ], perhaps you might like to reconsider your statement above. ] (]) 09:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::And . I have therefore raised the matter at ]. Desist. ] (User:Pigsonthewing); ]; ] 10:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::FFS, stop it! | |||
| ::::I have been trying to respond to Olana's earlier reply to me, and it is taking a while to get the wording right. I certainly don't want to be dragged into any arguments -- I only made my comments trying to act as peacemaker and keep a degree of civility about the place. | |||
| ::::However, I can see that I am inextricably linked now, so I have little choice. | |||
| ::::In the case of the 'personal attack' that Pigs~ is referring to, that was an issue between Olana and myself, and it is for the two of us to resolve it. No discussion has taken place yet to resolve the misunderstanding (which is how I see it). I don't take kindly to other editors hijacking edits to further their own ends. | |||
| ::::] (]) 11:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, following the subsequent activity, I ''shall'' reconsider my statement, as invited to by Olana. | |||
| :''In isolation'', your comment does seem unwarranted. However, considering the actual situation concerning the editor in question, I would now say that your edit is merely 'unhelpful', since it was highly likely to provoke a (negative?) response. | |||
| :In terms of being called 'a friend of Andy Mabbett' (which sounds like a euphemism!), I think that is unfair: I was simply trying to be impartial and obviously failed. As it is I seem to remember being on the side of the dissenting voices when Andy was pushing to have more coordinates included on routemaps and articles, although I don't remember discussing anything with him directly. | |||
| :] (]) 12:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:17, 6 October 2008
This user has decided that Wikipedians who are disruptive get treated more fairly than those that behave themselves. Accordingly, this user no longer wishes to be a part of Misplaced Pages.