Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:48, 29 January 2016

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Constructor names

Eightball, the reason why the constructor column in the team and driver table on the 2012 Formula One season page contains both team name and engine name is because - as a result of a long-standing consensus - the constructors' standings table at the bottom of the article contains both team name and engine name. Therefore, the team and driver table shows team name and engine name for consistency between both tables.

However, of more concern to me is this, your edit summary:

"No it's not. You guys are the worst. Always making things up. It ends here."

This is a highly-aggressive - and, quite frankly, extremely rude - comment. If you want to discuss the reasons for the change, then I suggest you talk about it first. It will give you and other editors the opprotunity to explain both ways of thinking and come to an agreement on what is best for the article. As it is, I see your comment that 1) describes other editors as "the worst", 2) accusing us of "always making things up", 3) finishing with "it ends here", as if you are the sole authority on the page and 4) no discussion on the talk page, and you you know what I read?

This:

"No it's not. You guys are the worst. Always making things up. It ends here."

Becomes this:

"Screw you guys, I know what's best for the page, and it should look like this because I say so. If you don't like that, deal with it."

To be brutally honest with you, I'd be inclined to revert your edits at the sight of such an arrogant comment.

If you want to contribute to the article, then by all means, we're willing to accomodate that and discuss your ideas. But nobody - and that includes you - has the right to make changes to a page because they don't like them, accuse everyone of poor editing, and then expect that their edits will remain without debate or argument. I've been an editor for four years now, and while I've mostly limited myself to the Formula 1 pages, the one thing I have learned from working with the other editors is that they do not suffer people like you gladly.

I suggest that you take a good, hard look at your attitude and the way you present yourself before you continue editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Misplaced Pages articles with Misplaced Pages tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year from the Women's Football Task Force!

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles throughout the year. 2014 is looking bright! We're glad to have you as a contributing member of the Women's Football Task Force and hope to see more of your great work in the new year. Cheers!

Task force quick links

Open Tasks | Recognized content | Members | Resources New! Portal:Women's association football

Mobile editing

I go through the browser. It took a bit of getting used to, because it uses a mobile-friendly format, but it can be a real pain at times, especially on bigger articles. It often takes three or four edits to do what I could do in on a computer, especially if I need to copy and paste as the browser cannot always handle it - if I copy and paste a URL for instance, the browser inserts it in places where the auto-correct has spotted my bad spelling. I updated all of the Formula 1 team articles so that drivers were listed sequentially (ie, Button, #22, was listed before Magnussen, #20, in the McLaren article). That would be simple enough on a computer, but in the mobile browser, I have to do this:

1 - Copy the text I want to move.

2 - Deliberately break the infobox by closing it off at the point where I want to insert the text.

3 - Create a new subsection underneath and save the exit.

4 - Edit the new subsection, copying the text I want to move over that heading, and save again.

5 - Repair the infobox, and add anything else I need (like a reference template) to the article, and save again.

So it's a pain, which I suppose is why I have been digging my heels in on the article talk page of late. What might seem like a simple edit to most means at least three times as much work for me, so I want to make damn sure that the changes we make are the right ones. But now that you mention that there us a Wiki app, I'll look into it. It might make life easier for me and me easier to get along with. Those long-winded debates on car numbering and Sergey Sirotkin got so long that they kept forcing my browser to stop. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Eightball, you really need to read WP:POINT. I really don't care about the exact issue of the numbering order, but you removing two valid sections whilst you do so, and edit-warring on that particular version, was absolutely unacceptable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Eightball you are in violation of WP:3R on the 2014 Formula One season, three reverts on an article in less than a day - and in this case five reverts. If reported, I would expect to see you'd be blocked from editting regardless of the merits of your arguement (because there are no exceptions allowed for 3R). Now stop it with the petty reverting with Prisonermonkeys. For your interest, I created this just for you. --Falcadore (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may add my thoughts here, there is a preliminary consensus on the talk page in favour of arranging the table in number order, not WCC order. You may not like that, but nobody ever said you had to. You may disagree with that, but that is what the talk page is for. The consensus itself might be weak, but it is a consensus. You do not get to override it because you dislike it or disagree with it. Ignoring a consensus, attempting to characterise edits you disagree with as vandalism, and removing 8,000KB of uncontested content from an article is both disruptive and in violation of AGF.

If you wish to see the order of the table changed, then you will need to form a new consensus first. A consensus can change over time - it is not a fixed rule that will be adhered to for eternity. But if you continue to ignore the existing consensus, if you continue to try and force through your preferred edits without the support of a new consensus, and if you continue this disruptive behaviour, then you can and probably will be referred to the administrators. Having your preferred version of the table in the article does not make your argument any stronger, just as having a different version of the table in the article does not make your argument any weaker. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:2014 Formula One season (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eightball reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: ). Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you doing this as a bet?

What's gotten into you? Edit-warring over a flag, and it isn't even two flags its just whether it is there or not. Are you OK? --Falcadore (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Germany

Your recent editing history at 2015 Formula One season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are already well and truly past 3RR—you have reverted no less than five times in the space of a day. If this continues, you will be referred to the 3RR noticeboard. By rights, you already should have been. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DRN

If you lodge a DRN, it is mandatory you notify the users involved on their talk pages. You can find the explanation how to do so over at WP:DRN. Regards, Tvx1 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Tvx1 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Community Shield

I see that you reverted my edits to the Community Shield disambiguation page, and the Community Shield (disambiguation) redirect. When the base name is ambiguous, that's where the disambiguation page is supposed to be (per WP:D). The (disambiguation) title should redirect to the disambiguation page at the base name so that intentional links to the disambiguation page can be created (per WP:INTDABLINK).

Additionally, copy/paste moves are not allowed. If you feel that the disambiguation page should move to Community Shield (disambiguation), and one of the two articles listed there should move to Community Shield, please use WP:RM to perform that move. -Niceguyedc 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We can keep your version, but the histories are going to need to be merged together, and the page should sit at Community Shield. I will file a request at WP:RM to accomplish this. -Niceguyedc 20:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Qed237. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Qed237 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football. Qed237 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Stats in infoboxes

Hi, when you update the stats in football players' infoboxes please remember that you should also update the |pcupdate= (or |club-update=) parameter. This shows when the stats were last updated and prevents editors from accidentally updating the stats again. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		This is for keeping your cool, staying so friendly and being incredibly constructive during the difficult Marussia discussion. Keep it up! Tvx1 12:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, please go back in time like a year and show your past self this edit. Please make sure he stays calm. ;) Eightball (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. A times I'm really disappointed in how I contributed to discussions in the past (up until last december that is). A discussion with Prisonermonkeys about some alignment last december is when I vowed to change and while it hasn't been easy, I do my very best to manage. Tvx1 13:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I just happened to read about the discussion about QED237 in the admin's notice board. While what he did was technically correct (as the information is factually wrong if the timestamps are not updated), the question is why can't he update the timestamps instead of reverting? It is very surprising and perplexing that the admins and the community are defending him for his technically correct move instead of telling him to update the timestamps instead, where I think the latter is obviously the better solution (It is better to have the latest up-to-date correct information than outdated correct information). Hence, it is very surprising that he never explained why he can't update the timestamps and why he was not asked/required to provide one. Am I missing something? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McLaren Technology Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Qed237, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Qed237 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying He is an awful, shameful human being. is in no way acceptable. I suggest you start considering the way you act on wikipedia before complaining about others. You keep holding the same grudge not seeing how things have progressed the last couple of months. Qed237 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop calling people liars because they disagree with you. There is no reason to think they are being intentionally duplicitous and calling them liars without very clear evidence is a personal attack. Further personal attacks of any type will result in a block. We can't have people getting nasty over tiny little disagreements. HighInBC 18:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_user_Eightball regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HighInBC 18:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Eightball (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is very obvious that Tvx1 and Zwerg Nase are working in tandem to block editors who disagree with them and control the content of the F1 pages. You can clearly see that since they've had me and Prisonermonkeys blocked they've changed the page to a style that NEVER received consensus. Eightball (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon 16:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Eightball (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What else do you want me to say? Two editors are conspiring together to drive away other editors and get their way. Are you in support of that? It's antithetical to everything Misplaced Pages is supposed to be. Don't respond with canned answers or some BS policy no one cares about. Make a REAL decision and justify it on your own. Explain to me using more than six characters why you think these two editors should be allowed to silence all opposition. Eightball (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You had plenty of warning. Even this unblock request continues with your assumptions of bad faith and accusations without evidence. You have not talked about your own behaviour that resulted in this block so I cannot accept this unblock request. This block has already been plenty justified, we don't need people getting nasty over minor disagreements. HighInBC 16:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@HighInBC: Then don't unblock me, but at least revert the F1 2016 article back to the consensus version, rather than awarding Tvx1 and Zwerg Nase for their successful ability to block everyone who disagrees with them. Eightball (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Admins don't get to decide consensus any more than you do. Neither of those users got you blocked, you got you blocked. The block was the result of your nastiness not anything anybody else did. HighInBC 16:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You asked for evidence and I gave you evidence. Two users disagreed with two other users. The latter drove away the former and now get to decide the content of the page alone, without opposition. It is INSANE that you will do nothing about this. Eightball (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Be proactive. You have the ability now to step in and set the tone. Otherwise, this argument will drag on for months, and Tvx1 and Zwerg Nase will get even better at trolling. Eightball (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Turning a simple disagreement into an adversarial situation is exactly why you are blocked. People taking a contrary point of view than you is not trolling. I have already linked you to WP:ASPERSIONS and told you that accusations without evidence are considered personal attacks. I am about to pro-actively take away your talk page access for the duration of the block if you continue to use it to make baseless accusations against others. HighInBC 16:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Go to the F1 2016 page. They almost immediately reverted it to their style once I was blocked. This is not a baseless accusation, it is an objective fact. Eightball (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't seem to grasp that an article getting reverted to a version you don't prefer is not trolling. People disagreeing with you is not lying. If you can't tell the difference then it might be best for you to avoid those users and that area of the encyclopedia. HighInBC 17:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not calling them liars because they disagree with me. I'm calling them liars because they're LYING. The page, in it's current (false) state includes a note saying, "Renault announced the purchase of Lotus F1 Team, but have yet to announce changes to the team's identity." But that's objectively not true! The head of the team literally said that the current name, Lotus, will disappear (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/11/lotus-boss-admits-name-will-disappear-from-f1-when-renault-deal-goes-through/). So TBA, at the very least, is the correcting naming choice. Leaving the word "Lotus" as the team name is a literal, provable, and objective LIE. 17:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that the other editors are interpreting sources differently. I read that discussion and it is not clear cut, there is plenty of room for interpretation. You need to stop assuming bad faith when someone takes a contrary point of view than you. The people on that talk page have patiently explained to you that we need to wait until we can get proper verification. You responded by attacking them. You can argue your case without calling people liars. Frankly after reading that discussion from top to bottom you are by far the most disruptive influence on the page.

You don't always get what you want on Misplaced Pages. If you just wait a little while until it can be properly verified then it will probably be included. HighInBC 17:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that their team name is being changed is not up for debate. TBA is the correct choice. The team will not be called Lotus, period, and there's no disagreement possible on that point. This is why I assume bad faith - I think they dug themselves into a hole, I proved them wrong, but of course this is the internet and no one wants to admit being wrong. That's how this panned on. But again, keeping the Lotus name on the page is a lie. It will not be the team's name in 2016 and that is a proven, unquestionable fact. Eightball (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: If someone wanted to edit the Moon's article to say that it doesn't exist, would you entertain that viewpoint? Or would you just correctly dismiss it as being objectively untrue? Obviously the latter. I don't understand why you expect me to respect someone's "point of view" when it obviously contradicts reality. This is an enormous waste of time and the end result is a bad wiki. Eightball (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can't edit with respect and assume good faith toward the other volunteers here, whether or not you agree with the content of their edits, you need to find a different hobby; you'll keep running into the same problem here. --jpgordon 21:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: What is so hard about understanding that this has NOTHING to do with "agreeing"? I will not respect an edit that is provably and objectively false. Eightball (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeating yourself, but the problem isn't that we have not heard you. The problem is that others disagree with you. You are not listening to me when I say that there is room for interpretation about what the sources say. The objective facts you are claiming are in fact seen as lacking in verification by others. You must understand why Misplaced Pages can't just accept your interpretation of things and disregard the interpretation of others. Even a magic 8 ball is not given the much faith. HighInBC 01:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself because YOU are not listening. These are objective facts. Your failure to understand that doesn't change anything. There is no room for interpretation. When the head of an organization says, "We ARE going to change our name," how can you interpret that to mean "we're not changing our name"? Hm? Explain that nonsense point of view to me, please. Eightball (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not even remotely how we interpret this. I cannot understand that you think that is our point of view. Our interpretation is that when the head of an organization says, "We ARE going to change our name some time in the future.", that ≠"We HAVE changed our name." and that ≠ "We HAVE started the requested procedure to have our name changed.". Just how is that interpretation factually wrong by any means? Tvx1 02:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, @Tvx1: If that is the case, then why does the page still stay Lotus? The head of the organization, by your own admission, has said they WILL change their name. I will concede to you that we have no idea what the name will be. So why does it say Lotus? This is not an article about the present. It is an article about the future, about 2016. All we know is that we DON'T know what the former Lotus team will be called - except that it won't be Lotus. Eightball (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Eightball, as long as you continue to believe this is about facts you will continue to be blocked.

This is about how you talk and behave to other editors and has nothing to do with facts. When you wake up to that, you will be able to move forward in this debate. In the meantime, you remain stuck at square zero at the bottom of the board game. --Falcadore (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Qed237. Qed237 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ManorRacingLogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ManorRacingLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Arsenal F.C.. Qed237 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jenkinson

Hi, please WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop accusing me for events a year ago. I looked at arsenal.com and there is not a single word that the loan has ended. After that I moved on to Jenkison article and there it still says he is on loan and nothing about him returning to Arsenal. Do you have any reliable source that says that the loan actually has ended? Qed237 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)