User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2015/June

Renault edit war
Hello. I am a victim of an edit war. Again. And by the same users. They erased FIRST and then again and again some references, basing only on some arbitrary judgements with no proof like "promotion", "junk" etc. I had already opened a discussion BEFORE you erased my text and sources AGAIN. By erasing my contributions with independent sources, you chose to support Urbanoc and all the users who supports him in a way : to prevent to add some true, neutral and sourced information in the Renault article, when they are positive. I opened a discussion, anyway none of the previous discussions had a fair conclusion.

What is wrong in these 3 contents that I added ?. If you find nothing wrong below, then they must be edited.


 * 1) "Renault has a strong interest in British design know how. In 2014, Renault asked the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove to "dress" its Twingo III with leds, as the Twin'Z concept car . In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015 . Renault is also acknowledged for its contribution to design by the British professionals, like for example the Renault Twingo III has been awarded the title of "Design of the Year" in the 2015 Fleet World Honours ."

Why this user erased a part of these statistics ? Why does he transform 157 into "about 150" and not "about 160", or just keep the accurate number ? The same user reduced the 167 victories of Renault in F1 to "about 160", so his trend to lower the performances of Renault is a constant trend !
 * 1) as in 2014 the Renault sales outperformed the market overall growth with a 43.7% increase and 66,334 personal vehicles -in spite of a range limited to the Clio, Captur, Mégane, Zoe, Scénic, Kangoo, Twizy and the the third-generation Twingo, launched at the end of 2014- and 84,578 cars and vans (+42.7%). In the first half of 2015, the Renault dealership network comprised 157 sales outlets and aims at expanding to 170 in 2015.

I removed "viral success", yet it is, but you continued to erase these true information with neutral sources ? Is is a normal behaviour ? Urbanoc accused me of "French IP", clearly a personal attack to mean a French man, yet he does not know about this. This user is not British, but there is no problem for that and I never accused him on this, and it should be a problem if I would be French ? This user launches some strange and repetitive accusations based on some particular national origins ! Is WP a place where some people are treated badly and inferiorly, basing on nationality assumptions ? He accuses of "junk" content. Very bad word and personal attack. About the viral video, davidreviews.com "maybe this extraordinary film for Renault is going to help them corner that particular market It's a fully committed piece of work and, if you're not a fan of this musical genre and you stay with it to the end, you may feel as though you deserve a free Renault Twingo. It is clever too... it must work on a loop as it ends more or less where it starts - although you may not notice that a musical number has just finished when you watch it the first time" It is independent and positive. My other source points out also a positive analysis about how the story and video are made. So, 2 independent reviews by some people that analyse the marketing approach are positive, why removing these proofs ?
 * 1) In April 2015, Renault released a film performing a genuine chorus line, "All-new Twingo : show me a car", in which a twee styled woman is searching a nifty car. This brief musicals got a in the UK with approximately 300,000 views in 4 weeks and was pointed out as a creative work.

Thank you to point out what is wrong in my text and why this true and sourced content should be censured. If you find nothing then edit this content. As to me, I am 100% sure that there is absolutely nothing promotional in citing the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove (!) or any of these true informations that are neutral facts, like 2 sales statistics, or the viral video that received several positive reviews from some professionals. The only problem is that this group of users censure the informations that are positive. Have a nice day. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles are developed by consensus, and the information that you are attempting to add is not meeting the consensus aspect. There are five pillars, and primarily that this is an encyclopaedia used for an article, and the opinion on that article is that the five pillars are not being met. There are processes for dispute resolution which can be used if needed. The article is about the motor company so things that take that thread to extreme may not be considered relevant. I have no personal opinion on the article, I just want the consensus resolution to take place on the talk page. My reverting the article to the status quo is in support of no individual, it supports the process of use of talk pages and consensus when there is an editing dispute. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

=> Hello. Sorry if I am wrong when suspecting you to support these users, but I have some good reason to do that and I have no proof that you are neutral as you chose to erase my content, so you chose a side. Consensus ? The consensus of a group of people who made the Renault article a concentration of negative information and lies, instead of reflecting the whole statistics of positive information too ?

They even "voted" a special rule (?) that it is forbidden for Renault to mention its list of awards, whereas it is not forbidden to do it in Ford, GM, Volkswagen etc. Totally biased "vote". What a consensus ! Anyway, they removed them even before the end of the vote, and so closed quickly the "vote", done by "Jim Carter" -a FALSE name by the way- : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Renault#RfC:_Should_we_include_awards_lists_for_car_models_in_this_article.3F What is the value of a vote that "officially" penalize Renault in comparison to some other cars makers ? NO value. What is the value of a vote that "officially" penalize Renault in comparison to some other cars makers, when even not 10 people vote among 7 billion potential readers ? NO value. So I ask you to stop blocking my contributions. I want to add some statistics, they are true and neutral. To prevent them to be shown, is an arbitrary bias, in order to show only some old negative information, instead of the actual positive statistics. In a classroom if you let people make a consensus, only the bad people will win : they are more numerous, they will use intimidation and any crafty means to "win". Please, involve into the discussion. You don't need to be an expert W.Thomas interests only to the Miss Blabla articles, and yet he suddenly appeared in the discussion, never speaking accurately about the content and my references, but only attacking me with no proof. '''Mentioning the work of the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove is not promotional, just a fact. Why removing that ? Some professional of marketing have congratulated the "chorus line" video idea and its real level of quality, why censuring that ?''' They just state : it is promotion. Ridiculous. Women especially and some other people are interested by this information, and they never think to the readers, only by removing the positive true information and statistics. They accuse me of promotion intentions, it is a typical "Witches of Salem" pattern. '''To add some awards in the Renault article is forbidden and accused of promotion, to add some awards in the Volkswagen, Ford etc. article is allowed and never accused of promotion. This community is strongly biased. As well as the consensus obviously.''' They don't respect the "no personal attack" item by using some very denigrating words like "junk", as well as "It requires a fairly poor grasp of English to think that it is". But also this typical BASHING speach http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Renault&diff=665459194&oldid=665458790 And to finish by "please" changes nothing to this BASHING.

In addition my sources are not primary, but davidreviews and unruly are independent marketing observers : so bashing and total lies. Several pilars are violated by these users, and you cannot deny this, can you ? Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Consensus is consensus. Talk pages are for talking. The article is encyclopaedic, and while it is all fact, it is also pertinent, and obviously not all facts will be pertinent to the article. Resolution processes exist and it is not continually adding to the article, so if you are not happy with the consensus from the talk page then use the resolution processes. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

=> Some people even add the p*rn "actors" on WP, so... encyclopaedic... On the contrary, the information about Ross Lovegrove is encyclopaedic, like when I added the Renault centre and Sir N. Forster, yet they blocked this content again ! But finally, they "accepted" to make a little sentence and new article thanks to my idea. Strangely enough you don't pay attention to the bashing of Lukeno94, the typical ''go away from here ! Everybody want you to go go away'' bashing rhetoric, but if I dared to write the same things, then it would be an opportunity to block the IP. A few little people are not everybody ! OK, I will be obliged to use the resolution processes. Ross Lovegrove, the Clerkenwell design week, the viral campaign proven creative by 2 independent sources, not blogs, Unruly is a company -so Likeno94 is lying again about this too- are involvements of Renault into the UK culture. On the contrary, the DS3 and Pixie Lott campaigns are just adverts. People at Renault have a strong admiration for the British design for decades, it is a part of this company culture and it has to be mentioned. I notice that you refuse to answer about what would be wrong in my content, proven by some independent sources, that are not primary -lie of Lukeno94 again-. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be listening to what I am saying, simply repeating yourself over and over instead. I have no personal interest in the article, and no knowledge of the content. I simply returned the article to the status quo, and stated that the policy is to resolve the issues on the talk page. Please tone down your rhetoric, repeated declaration of people are lying is not nice nor helpful; combative approaches rarely win. Again I will restate if you want a resolution then follow the dispute resolution process. I think that this conversation has reached its conclusion. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your advice. Which "dispute resolution" can I use ? I do not aim at winning, I aim at improving the content, and the same people always oppose to that. They did oppose to add the Renault Centre by Norman Foster, for example, or to edit some statistics that are shown for some other car makers. You could be chocked by the fact that they do not discuss my neutral content with independent third-party source, so PERFECT for WP, personal attacks and typical bullying strategy, the please words are obviously rhetorical and ironic : "You have no credibility. Don't expect people to take you seriously when you do things like consistently add POV content to articles", "find a more useful hobby", "No one has any interest in your promotional waffle, so go and find something else to do away from Wikipedia" (I GOT THE IDEA OF A NEW ARTICLE WAS MADE FOR THE RENAULT CENTRE, CONSIDERED AS A PIECE OF ART FOR ARCHITECTURE, so yes my content interest people, only a few bullying people are not the 7 billions readers), "Everyone here is against adding it, so accept it, and find something else to do" (even not half a dozen people is NOT everybody !) etc. IT IS BULLYING ! It is not a little thing. WP EDITS and SELLS some books with these contents, so editing deliberately some articles that prevents the balance between the numerous positive info. and a few negative one is a real problem. READ THIS, what only factual sentences with independent thirds-party sources, so no fair reason to censure that, except that these people don't want that true information that can been seen as positive can be edited in the Renault article :
 * 1) FACTUAL : In 2014 the Renault sales outperformed the market overall growth with a 43.7% increase and 66,334 personal vehicles -in spite of a range limited to the Clio, Captur, Mégane, Zoe, Scénic, Kangoo, Twizy and the the third-generation Twingo -launched at the end of 2014- and 84,578 cars and vans (+42.7%).
 * 2) FACTUAL : In the first half of 2015, the Renault dealership network comprised 157 sales outlets and aims at expanding to 170 in 2015.
 * 3) FACTUAL : Renault has a strong interest in British design know how. In 2014, Renault asked the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove to "dress" its Twingo III with leds, as the Twin'Z concept car.
 * 4) FACTUAL : In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015.
 * 5) Renault is also acknowledged for its contribution to design by the British professionals, like for example the Renault Twingo III has been awarded the title of "Design of the Year" in the 2015 Fleet World Honours.
 * 6) FACTUAL : In April 2015, Renault released a film performing a genuine chorus line, "All-new Twingo : show me a car", in which a twee styled woman is searching a nifty car. This brief musicals got a in the UK with approximately 300,000 views in 4 weeks and was pointed out as a creative work by professionals and a West End of London tribute.

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Userpage spam
Just saw that you beat me to deleting User:ReynaSchreiber6 before I could tag it. The content of the page suggested that it may have been made to be repeatedly posted by a bot. Whether that's the case or not is unclear, but sure enough, there is another userpage with the exact same text minus the link on it. What do you make of that? dalahäst (let's talk!) 05:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. All part of the "Ntsamr" spam set with variations, and it was a good catch on your behalf. FWIW I have globally blacklisted the url, as it has been (or attempted to be) spammed xwiki. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I don't think I've come across more than one or two of them in the past, so I wasn't aware that they'd become a thing apparently disruptive enough to merit their own abuse filter. dalahäst (let's talk!) 06:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * it is one of the Russian-designed and sold spambot programs that focuses on forum and wiki pages with this version being a widely used implementation, and one that has number of variations, to read a little more NTSAMR. We have a good global filter that is mostly effective, though global filters don't apply here. All a giant PITA but we do what we do to keep the rubbish out. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Figures. I found the Meta page after googling the acronym, hah. I'll be on the lookout for more of them. Do they typically show up in batches, or do they register more slowly to try and avoid suspicion? dalahäst (let's talk!) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Both/all/one. You can see batches of accounts on a wiki, batches across wiki, or just singletons. The clearer identifier is the account name patterns (two partial names combined often) with the format, and usually the look-at-me components. They usually operate out of server farms, though can operate out of open proxies, or can operate out of hijacked machines. They are very clever, and we are mostly reactive, though we do manage some preventative though try not to inhibit real users. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death
Hi. I do not put the dates into thee text of the article William Trail because they were in the infobox and I considered to be redundant. I do not know if it exist some policy about the mater in en:wiki. If it is the case, I have to check my other half a dozen of new contributions to en:wiki. Thanks for your answer.--Ferran Mir (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * not an issue, it is a wiki. If you are after the guidance for bios, see Manual of Style/Biographies — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. However in the Manual of Style/Biographies there is no mention about infoboxes. I considered that infobox is a part of WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, so it exists redundancy. But it is true that biographical articles had the birth and death date in the lead paragraph, independently if they have or not infobox. I will take into account for following editions and I will try to include it in the articles I have created. Thanks.--Ferran Mir (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is correct that the same information in the lead and the infobox, though it is not necessarily redundant, as they are two different components and people read articles differently. It is what it is and one day it will change. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)