Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:47, 6 June 2011

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2. Archive 3

Barnstar for you

		The Special Barnstar
		I've noticed that you have been doing a lot of good work lately and wanted to offer this as a token of appreciation. Johnfos (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ebikeguy. I see that you have been active in editing the PHEV listing. As one who has long monitored this page, your effort here are appreciated. However, I see you recently removed additions that aimed to provide balance to the topic. Yes, they required editing, which has now been done. Your review and comments are appreciated. Othersideofthecoin (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Blake1960 Making Disruptive Edits

Re your message: I think this is a case of a new editor who does not know how Misplaced Pages works in terms of original research, writing style, tone, and civility. I think that perhaps a lighter touch may work out a bit better here. Your last message to him was more along the lines that I think will work better. Sometimes a friendly note to point new editors to talk pages and how Misplaced Pages works is a better method than just warnings, especially if they are making a good faith attempt at adding content. I don't know anything about this particular issue, so I can't comment on the content itself. If you need a third opinion to break a deadlock, you can try WP:3O. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have issued a 3RR block as he violated in Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (plus making personal attack in edit summary). OhanaUnited 04:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been here 6 years and now I'm looking at two articles taht have been protected this week. I'd never seen an article on my watch list protected before. Are teh admins finally cracking down on the rabble, or is it just a statistical outlier? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New question

There are several pages which need coordination.

• I started a new page on Material Flow Analysis MFA in response to a need expressed in the Glossary for Resource stocks and Resource flows.
• I discovered that there is already another page on MFA .
• I am aware of many potential links, which need coordination by someone better than I am at Misplaced Pages editing.
• Therefore will you help me / us?

Seniorexpat (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, man. I really appreciate it. Love the Bridgestone with full fenders, racks, and hub gears. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebikeguy, we share, it seems, a very large handful

of strongly defining things including off-wikipedia writing genres, seeing your page featuring your Plummer. I haven't registered an email address with Misplaced Pages, I don't think, might I offer you one I occasionally access and warmly, eagerly, invite you send me one there to which I can reply from post or one I regularly use?:

CENSORED@censored.com

Please.

Pandelver (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

NEV

Regarding the IIHS/NEV reference in electric car, I can't see where it says NEV in the referenced article or the press release - only in the comments tacked on the end. It's also not clear what 'NEV' stands for - presumably 'xxx electric vehicle'. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

See my additional edits and Wikilinks which match the language in the reference with the language in the article. I also clarified the acronyms LSV and NEV. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown

Have you looked at the opening of the article now that you have "unbroken" it? It now reads "Sheldon Brown ... was a American bicycle mechanic". The "U" is in the title of the linked article, not what is displayed to the reader. "was a American" needs to be fixed.

By the way, linking "American" is unnecessary. WP:OVERLINK says "An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Misplaced Pages." Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

D'OH! Thanks for your patience with my imperfections. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We're cool. Chris the speller (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Zap

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Zap related articles. As you may have noticed the exact same editor (albeit with a different dynamic IP address from the same ISP) seems to be on a crusade to censor and spam the articles with corporate marketing BS. He/she is undoubtedly an employee of Zap - obvious from the location of the IP address range, the style of the editing, and the fact that the ISP is in the same part of China as Jonway. Perhaps all this evidence is enough to go for semi-protection of all the Zap articles (or at the least the main article and the Zap Alias) to stop this interference and COI/spamming. What do you think? --Biker Biker (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think semi-protection is merited at this point. I should probably have gone through the edits point-by-point and tried to fix them, rather than reverting everything, but the sheer magnitude of the COI edits this/these person(s) are doing makes it difficult to keep up. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagging of Highfield Priory School

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Highfield Priory School. I disagree with the speedy deletion of Highfield Priory Schoolbecause Schools are not eligible. You should therefore not retag Highfield Priory School for speedy deletion. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Round Maple (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, which has been used a lot with schools recently. I'd definitely say the school isn't notable and doesn't merit an article on Misplaced Pages. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much to both of you. I shall be more conservative in adding speedy delete tags. Biker, how do I delete it myself, not being an admin and all? Also, I understand WP:BRD theoretically, I think, but how do I apply it to articles, other than as a template to editing and discussing changes in general (or maybe that's all you meant by your suggestion). Ebikeguy (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Maby it should be merged with Fulwood, Lancashire. Round Maple (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as Highfield, Lancashire doesn't appear to exist. Round Maple (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Strays

I replaced your speedy deletion tag for The Strays with an advert tag. Round Maple (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Arithmetic Fixing

I saw that the Volt had a better mpg-e rating than the Leaf and thought something was wrong. so using the data that was already there (Conversion 1 gallon of gasoline=33.7 kw-hr), I recalculated and fixed the numbers. No extra source was needed since I used the numbers on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.57.122 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See Mariordo's comments after he set things back to the way you had them as an excellent example of how to explain edits like this. Thanks for your help on the article! Ebikeguy (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

842U

I am not lashing out, I am stating facts. This editor has caused many problems, both on the article, and on the discussion page. I'm just stating facts to level the playing field. (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

You are not simply stating facts. You are engaging in personal attacks that are prohibited under WP:PERSONAL, such as when you state "You just don't get it, do you?" If you do not stop, I will bring your behavior to ANI. Ebikeguy (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine it was deleted...(I knew what you were referring to)..I hope you also consider what really is important here, because it's not helping the article or the site. Read through the useful and productive previous discussions and you'll see the current one offers no real useful suggestions, only biased opinions, which is what (only a few-4) Users would like to turn the article into. I worthless, biased blog. Their contributions were not deleted, however, the delivery of some of it was clearly featuring User point of view. Facts and Reviews should be presented with Neutrality, according to Misplaced Pages standards. The article surly does not require a re-write. It is probably the most complete, and neutral auto article on the site. It took long enough too, with many User suggestions carried out, in addition to many User changes, not to mention, much research done. (Barnstarbob (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

I understand your position. I encourage you to take a break from editing for a few hours. You appear to be in a highly emotional state, and you might be more persuasive if you continue editing when you are calmer. I know I am going to bed... Good night. Ebikeguy (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I wish I could be spending time improving articles lately...(Barnstarbob (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Talkback

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Reception (Chevrolet Vega)

First of all Reception section I made, other than the non-auto sourced Criticism added by 842U. The auto press praise and auto press criticism subsections had quotes from the same articles put into the separate subsections. All I did was combine the individual praise and criticism quotes from each auto magazine review into one section. For instance the first entry Motor Trend August 1970 had several quotes in auto praise and several in auto criticism (from the same road test) These were combined in the first entry in auto press reviews." In summary, nothing was gutted. The auto press praise and auto press criticism was combined for each review used in auto press reviews. The actual criticism of the car (not road test reviews from auto mags) was kept as Criticism because it is actual criticism, not reviews (road tests) of a car. There is a difference between Criticism and a Review. Reviews have both praise and criticism now listed together from each auto-sourced article. (not really needed to separate the reviews into two sections) The Criticism section has (only) Criticism of the car (not reviews or road tests) from non auto sourced articles. Nothing was gutted, just organized.(Barnstarbob (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

As you will see Barnstarbob's gutting of the article has now been reverted by an admin and the article has been locked down again. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

New Brunswick Curling Association

Look at User talk:Dthomsen8/Draft articles/Linkrot for more inline citations created from bare URLs for the NBCA article, and work out which ones may be used in the article. It seems to me that some of them can be used to document facts, or to add new information, such as the Executive Director information I added myself. Rescue is good, improvements are better. When you are done, the stub tag can be removed, and the templates can be changed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Vega article

It has been concluded in the Project Automobile discussion involving many more than four Users that the article does not require major changes. The couple of Users in the current discussion in favor a major changes are the minority and did not contribute or participate in previous discussions involving this article. I issued the complaint here, remember, not based on any assumed ownership you might be considering, but the major changes that were made to the article without a discussion from two Users who did not participate in the previous discussions. The block has lead to this unproductive discussion (the previous ones were) with no real improvements served up by Users who have, themselves tried to render the article non neutral, isolated to certain sections, usually the lead. If you've kept up with the links I provided, in addition to the dialogue that has taken place the last month in regards to 842U and BikerBiker, there has not been anything productive offered to the article or the general order of the site, hence my complaint. Please don't make me the villen. I have wasted a lot of time here lately...I could have been more useful to the site. Clearly there is just an edit war going on that has turned into a personal power trip by a couple of Users. I have followed Misplaced Pages procedures, have not reverted other Users edits, and have not made major changes to this article without a discussion despite working on it for over two years with clearly much done. The article is meets the an A rating and should at this point be reviewed for that rating instead of re-writing anything or major changes not required by several very long and productive disscussions. It is a factual, complete, neutral article and does not require a major lead edit and changed by one Editor daily for a month without a discussion, hence my complaint. I hope you don't miss the real source of the problem here (it should be quite clear on the discussion page) the current two or three Users, who for some reason feel the need to re-write the article, and now accepting to re-write the lead and Reception, have shown to upset the neutrality of the article, if that weren't bad enough, but it has been worse, as the talk page shows. I don't think its getting through. the problem here. This is not productive to the article or the site at this point based on the problems the two Users are causing on the article, the discussion pages, and the talk pages. It's getting out of hand. Maybe I need to seek help from another administrator? Or can you offer some resolution without warnings. Thanks.(Barnstarbob (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Your discounting of the results of the RfC will not nullify them. If edits are made based on the results of the RfC, with the support of editor consensus, and you revert them multiple times, you will be blocked from editing further. I hope it does not come to that. I strongly suggest you take a break from editing the article for a month or two and see where it ends up after that. I promise you that the article will still be there when you get back, and you might be surprised at the high quality of the changes made while you were "on break." Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an Uninvolved Admin to Close RfC

{{adminhelp}}

I'm not sure if the "adminhelp" tag is the correct one to use here. Forgive me if I used it incorrectly. I started a highly charged RfC at Chevrolet Vega. We held it open for an extra week so that a blocked editor could participate. At this point, it seems to have run its course. I am hoping an uninvolved admin can close it now, with a note stating that the discussion is now over and no further edits should be made, making the expressed editor consensus official. Perhaps the "Proposed Closing Language" subsection could be renamed "Results" or something similar. I don't think that having an admin close the RfC is strictly necessary, but having an admin do so could reinforce the validity of the consensus derived from the discussion. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have read the discussion and will close it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuel

Today we mostly use petrol and diesel from crude oil, but this is running out in resources within 30 years. Do you know what we will be most likely to use as an alternative? Pass a Method talk 18:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a difficult and complicated question. Nothing available to us now has anywhere near the energy returned on energy invested as does oil. This could make for leaner times ahead. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words our children will be in deep sh*t? Pass a Method talk 18:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly lots of people who espouse that theory. I am hopeful that catastrophe will be diverted through changes in lifestyle, new energy sources, etc. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Its certainly strange how our politicians seem more interested in a potential climate change disaster rather than this obvious and fast-approaching issue. But i have a feeling there's something our politicians are not telling us. Pass a Method talk 19:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Salvio 22:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your trust. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome! As I said on your RFA, you know what you're doing and you can use it. Just take care not to accidentally rollback things when you're scrolling through your watchlist, as I do far too often... Salvio 22:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Ebikeguy. I noticed you withdrew from your RfA, so I did the "paperwork" of closing it. I'm sorry it turned out the way it did; hopefully you will be able to use the constructive criticism and set aside the criticism that wasn't so constructive. Just because this RfA didn't succeed does not mean you're not thought of as a good editor, so please keep up the good work. Best, 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the closing paperwork. I was not quite sure if I was supposed to un-transclude my RfA, or let someone else do it. I thought the vast majority of the criticism expressed was constructive, and I learned a great deal from the process. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Speaking from experience, an unsuccessful RfA isn't a lot of fun, but I agree, they can be a valuable learning experience. (And many of our most respected admins had to get an unsuccessful first attempt under their belts before eventually getting the mop.) 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Help Reverting a Merge Done In Direct Opposition to Results of Editor Discussion

Re your message: This is a content dispute and not much I do to regarding this. There is a new discussion about the merging going on here. There seem to be a couple of editors who agree with the merge while there are some that disagree. Consensus can change after time, so try to work it out on the talk page to see if a new consensus can be reached. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)