Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 17 September 2010

See User_talk:TruckCard#September_2010 and find five admins blocking me or failing to lift the blocks.

• User:Magog the Ogre
• User:Courcelles
• User:JamesBWatson
• User:Beeblebrox
• User:Hersfold

NOWHERE WERE THE TWO BLOCKS JUSTIFIED BY THE WRITTEN WP POLICIES.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TruckCard, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Please do not replace Misplaced Pages pages with blank content, as you did to the page Category:Transportation disasters in Tanzania. Blank pages can confuse readers, and are overall not helpful to the Misplaced Pages project; furthermore, blanking a page is not the same as deleting it.

If the article you blanked is a duplicate of another article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the appropriate deletion process. Banaticus (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to the page Category:Transportation disasters in Burkina Faso has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see this page for instructions. Thank you. Banaticus (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

TruckCard, what are you doing? Banaticus (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Harmonization of category names. It's a mess currently. Partially I found there existed two categories at the same time, i.e. one iwth "transport" and one with "transportation" in the name. TruckCard (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not how you rename pages. You use the rename tool (moving a page), or you tag a page for deletion, depending on what needs to happen. You do not blank pages. Banaticus (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No move for categories. TruckCard (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, the last CfD for those categories was to Keep the names as is. I don't see any need to change perfectly good names. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The CfDs are out dated and not well thought trough. Me neither I do not see any need to change perfectly good names. But this here is a mess. Category:Transportation timelines had three articles in it namely Timeline of mass transit in Atlanta, Timeline of motorized bicycle history, Timeline of transportation technology. When doing the rename I found Category:Transport timelines with four articles and 27 subcategories. For mix up you may like to read Mars Climate Orbiter#The_metric.2FUS_customary_units_mix-up. TruckCard (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Misplaced Pages pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Sweet xx 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Hello. I agree it is inconsistent and makes WP look poor. Anyways, back in 2007 I definitively supported the "transport" form. I still do now, however I think we should have a broader discussion now, in order to not make some people angry by arbitrary decisions. - Darwinek (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, TruckCard. I've weighed in on the discussion here. You have a chance at having me as an ally, if you agree that hearing people's opinions matters. I hope you'll take that opportunity.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I am open for hearing any rationale that might exist against having these categories named consistently. TruckCard (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The rationale is simple: There are US conventions and non-US conventions for naming. When they are in conflict, we talk about it. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to support someone who doesn't seem to care about that?--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't want you to support me. I am only interested in the product. Think about the product, and do what you think is best for it. You say: There are US conventions and non-US conventions for naming. - Where are these? And did you see that sometimes a category used "transportation" while all subcategories (maybe except of one from the US) were named "transport"? I don't see a rationale there. Some people here seem to overemphasize the community thing. But I am here for the product. TruckCard (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
        • That is an attitude that I'm sure will get you blocked. Well, don't say nobody ever gave you a shot. As of this minute, stop making changes that are of the Transportation>Transport variety. The last one I see is "04:23, August 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Talk:Transport in Australia ‎ (moved Talk:Transportation in Australia to Talk:Transport in Australia over redirect: as used in article and category)". If there are further edits of this type, I'll be forced to initiate a temporary block. I'd rather not have to do that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request at my talk

The categories concerned are the ones you've moved and that are thus at CFD. Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

At CFD are only two I moved. TruckCard (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the ultimate list should be structured by region of usage, i.e. certain categories pertain to the United States, which use the "transportation" form. Any huge renaming is a priori doomed I think, and is likely to end with inconclusive result. The better way I see is to rename non-U.S.-related "transportation" categories. - Darwinek (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's actually the question, if it is proper to make a new CFD request or to start a discussion at some WikiProject. - Darwinek (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want to nominate 3,000+ categories at once to the CFD? - Darwinek (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A little confused

Why exactly did you post the link to the merge debate, regarding Transport lists? I'm just a little confused, do you want my vote on it?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 03:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, but a bit more grumpily; Please don't just post random links on my talk page without explanation. akaDruid (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian transport

I am over time trying to change all asia items that Indonesia is linked to to Southeast Asia - as the project does exist - however I do support your suggestion - cheers SatuSuro 10:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ahah you are dealing with seasoned CFD inhabitants - I m on a wait and see - will explain later - cheers SatuSuro 13:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Transport in Kosovo

I am currently mostly working in Serbian Misplaced Pages and I do not have enough free time to work in English Misplaced Pages too at this moment. So, if you think that name of this category should be changed, I would not object to any of your actions. PANONIAN 21:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

Asian templates - as an Indonesian project oriented editor I object heavily to asia templates - specially the asia one at the identity cards article - I am very very slowly trying to assert the right of regional parts of asia to carry and identify things that are not pan asian subjects - the identity card one is specially relevant - it is a vast sea of red links - and in the Indonesian project red link banks - so to speak are both discouraged if not removed - for a range of reasons. SatuSuro 23:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained article moves

Please refrain from moving articles without prior consensus among other editors. If you wish to move an article, bring it to the talk page first. I for one disagree with one of your article moves. Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, if you wish to have something fit a template, use redirects instead. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You're continuing to edit war with moving, and now you've created at least one circular redirect (a redirect that goes back to itself, making it impossible to find the actual article). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of your most recent article move without discussion, I have reported you for edit warring; see WP:AN3#User:TruckCard reported by User:Rjanag (Result: ). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you have a good reason for ignoring my comments on your talk page. You are engaging in disruptive editing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, you have continued to move other articles despite my warning. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

When you decide to create a disambiguation page at the title formerly used by an article, don't forget that both WP:FIXDABLINKS and WP:USURPTITLE strongly urge you to fix all the existing links that point to that title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

NICs in China

Talk:National identity cards in China

September 2010

Template:Z10

I also note that you were warned about edit warring, and you quite straightforwardly declined to desist ; thus the block above has been applied. It doesn't matter "who started it". This behavior has gone on across multiple pages, as is evidenced by your talk page history . I also do not buy that you weren't aware of the rule, as you were asked to read WP:EW and declined, and are also familiar enough with our policies to engage in a bit of Misplaced Pages jargon. Please stop edit warring in the future, OK? :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Resident Identity Card is a newly created dab page. I cannot have violated 3RR on that page at all. I also didn't edit the former page at that place, despite adding Template:fact

Decline reason:

You indeed did edit war at the article now located at National identity cards in the People's Republic of China. The fact that you moved it there... well, do you the administrators here are idiots? We're not; request declined. Courcelles 14:26, 16 September 2010 (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.

Don't play stupid. You edit warred on the article that existed at that location before you moved it—both edit warring (adding {{fact}} three times is editing) and move warring (move warring is also editing), and at numerous other articles, as detailed in the AN3 report that I provided a link to. Don't play stupid. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs and watch your language. I added Template:fact, but did not EW there. TruckCard (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I provided ample diffs at WP:AN3#User:TruckCard reported by User:Rjanag (Result: 24h). And you did edit war; have you still not read WP:EW and learned what edit warring means? rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See National identity cards in the People's Republic of China, the page which you moved to that title. That page has a move and three reverts on your side. Equally i see a lot of page moves in the logs, which were subsequently challenged as well. Also, i note two IP's on this page, both of which appear to be you (Which is effectively Block evasion). Excirial 14:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are the three reverts? What did I revert to? The move was completely separate und AGF,, since I found two things are called RIC. TruckCard (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

If adding Template:fact is EW than I am sorry to not have understood that before. The block is thus not necessary since I will not do that again. Moving the article was done under AGF, since I found out two things with that name existed. Since where the fact-template reomver provided a reason, I DID NOT add the Template again. The block is thus absolutely not necessary. And is anyone watching the language and EW of the other user? Are you all just friends of him, bashing a newbie?

Decline reason:

There are numerous reasons given on this page why your editing was unacceptable, and Ii will not repeat them here. However, it is clear that you do not accept that you were at fault, and it is not clear that you will not edit disruptively again. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (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.

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

Request reason:

JamesBWatson didn't properly review. I was blocked for 3RR on a specific page. I showed that a block for my actions there is not necessary. I said that I only put in a Template:fact for an unsourced fact in the page of question. The move of the page to create a dab page had nothing to do with the 3RR. The block was invalid. JamesBWatson is violating AGF, see - this shows he assumed bad faith.

Decline reason:

Now that you have resorted to evading the block it is very difficult to take your claims at face value. Any further unblock requests will need to address the block evasion as well as the edit warring that led to the original block. Mt advice to you however is to let it go, it's only a one day block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2010 (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.

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

Request reason:

Beeblebrox fails to show evidence that I engaged in WP:EVADE. And especially no evidence provided for: "and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block."

Decline reason:

I find it far too coincidental that a random IP editor would come along after you get blocked in order to protest that page's deletion. Hersfold 02:55, 17 September 2010 (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.

{{]}}

You can stop contesting it now, the block is over, and your attempts to have it rescinded early have failed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

People always say "I will not do that again" once they get blocked. You certainly weren't ceasing and desisting after multiple warnings, though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, you had multiple opportunities to read WP:Edit warring, and did not. It's not our fault that you didn't take the time to do that. Ignorance to the rules doesn't give you special permission to break them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding {{fact}} was a WP:POINTy way of furthering your dispute; you added fact at the very beginning of the article next to its title because you didn't like it; you did not however, take it to the talk page. In any case, if it was not 3RR, it was a block for edit warring and blatantly stating you had no interest in compromise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't like that it was unsourced. Still no English language source is given. WP should be accurate, read WP:V. TruckCard (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I provided reasons the first time I removed the {{fact}} tags, and every subsequent time; you, on the other hand, never provided an argument for adding them. Like Magog says, you only did it because you were mad that your move attempt was disputed.

Secondly, one does not need to make four reverts to be considered edit warring; again, read WP:EW. All of this is stated very clearly.

Thirdly, as Ben points out, moving was not done under "AGF", you already knew that the move was contested and you had already been asked multiple times to discuss before doing it. Just because you found some new evidence that you think proves your case doesn't give you the right to ignore discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:fact resolves to "citation needed" - you did not provide a citation. TruckCard (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been on this project for a while, I know what {{fact}} means. The reason I didn't provide a citation is because (as I've told you three times now) one was not necessary. Just because you put a template there doesn't mean people have to listen to you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese Misplaced Pages calls it JMSFZ. The Chinese Identity Law calls it JMSFZ. It is known by the wider public in China as JMSFZ. The image on the page calls it JMSFZ. "Resident Identity Card" is a literal translation of JMSFZ; if I stated that strawberries are red, would I need a source for something that would be general information? And now you're cherrypicking policy pages to make it look like you're the saint and we're the Nazis, am I incorrect? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the literal translation anywhere in use? How shall the reader verify it is correct? Requesting citation seemed actually to be the best thing to do. If you fail AGF - that is your failure. The Nazi analogy is yours. TruckCard (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations are not needed for simple, basic translations. And you should have started discussing all this stuff 4 or 5 reverts ago, if you didn't want to be blocked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Moving the article was done under AGF, since I found out two things with that name existed." - Not the official name for the Macau IDC. The page you have moved to National identity cards in the People's Republic of China belongs at Resident Identity Card, but you have created a page there to prevent others from moving it back (and thus falls under CSD G6). You have not replied or responded to any messages sent to you regarding your edits; you have not gained WP:CONSENSUS from the greater community for your edits; you have persistently reverted other editor's edits despite that there are a greater number of users that disagree with you. Do you honestly think that I can WP:AGF under these circumstances? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

read Resident Identity Card (Macau) - "Resident Identity Card" is used for that IC. Whether you can AGF is up to you. TruckCard (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your move there. And refer to the actual law, not the title you have made by moving the article. They don't call it 居民身份證(澳門), they call it 澳門特別行政區永久性居民身份證, which has an entirely different meaning. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Resident Identity Card (Macau) was set up as redirect, I never moved any article to that title. TruckCard (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That means nothing to me, as it does not address what I have said. They don't call it by that name. Therefore, a DAB is unnecessary. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is not called RIC, then remove it from the article. But why do I need to get blocked for creating a dab page, based on wrong article content. When requesting citation for the article contents on the other hand, you call it EW. So what's up with that string "Resident Identity Card"? TruckCard (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for setting up a dab page, you were blocked for edit warring across multiple articles. I don't know how many more times people have to repeat that before you will understand. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Requesting citation for article contents three times, after that edit has already been contested, and doing so by reverting another user without providing any edit summary whatsoever, is obviously edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

Willing to unblock

I'm willing to unblock you under the condition you admit that you were edit warring and that it wasn't appropriate. And I imagine any other administrators would be willing to do so should I not be present (as I will be away for a few hours). Also, as a note, I'll repeat that I put 3RR in the summary, but I meant to choose edit warring, that was my fault. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:EW - "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." - I did not override a contribution of the other party. Per WP:V I requested via Template:Fact that the claim the thing is called "Resident Identity Card" be sourced. When I found that there are other countries than the PRC using the term Resident Identity Card, I created a dab page. Then I got blocked. This was not appropriate. I cannot admit to have done EW. After the other party said sources are not needed for simply translations I did not insert the Template:Fact anymore. It was a lot of bad faith involved from the other parties, esp. James who claimed I had done the move to hide something. But it's all in the history of the move target, no hiding done by moving. The term "Resident Identity Card" is not owned by the People's Republic of China, e.g. "Kartu Tanda Penduduk" in Indonesia is translated the same. Macau too. TruckCard (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That was most unquestionably not the acknowledgement I was looking for. Edit warring is uncool, no matter how right you are. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(wow, this is still going on?)

Truck: you don't see this as "overriding" another editor's contribution? Or this? Or all this? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Socks

User is circumventing the block using socks via a dynamic IP. I will be requesting semi-protection on Resident Identity Card. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reset the 24 hours block for evading the block and continuing to edit war. The duration will be increased on this account if you do that again. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll let somebody else review your latest request, but you seem to have me confused with the admin who reblocked you in the first place. The point is that you are currently blocked for edit warring and for block evasion. You will need to explain yourself on both counts if you want to be unblocked. Pointing the finger at me is unlikely to help your case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On that point, the reviewing admin can see the now deleted block evasion here:. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget this one rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Beeblebrox, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to complain about my actions, take it to WP:ANI. Posts like the one you just made to my talk page are not how we resolve disputes here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And I've removed your listing of the five admins from your userpage. TruckCard, take a hint: if you keep trying to beat this dead horse, you're going to get reblocked. Otherwise go to ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

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

Request reason:

Toddst1 failed to provide a diff for "edit war" and NPA. I only created a dab page!!! I found that the term Resident Identity Card is also used in Indonesia, how can the Chinese article claim the term for itself? TruckCard (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You've failed to acknowledge that you were edit warring, and failing to acknowledge that you have been given ample warnings to stop edit warring and stop being disruptive. OhNoitsJamie 17:17, 17 September 2010 (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.

• Unless you start accepting some responsibility for your actions and not insulting people in the process example, you aren't going to be unblocked. Also, if you continue to place unblock requests without some contrition on your part, you can expect to lose your ability to edit your talk page as well. Your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)