User talk:Ebikeguy/Archives/2011/June

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 Wikipedia 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)

The Vega article is Very biased; it needs major changes. Despite personal witnesses and mechanic's inputs, or even GM's admitting to a poor design by allowing streel liners or a new cast iron block within 50K to be "in warranty" (this Was mentioned and referenced); it is dismissed as "O.R." Come to This side of the big pond and ask anyone...68.231.184.217 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on the Vega, but if your edits have been reverted as original research, it is generally an indication that the references you have provided do not meet wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. If you have questions about a specific revert, please post a copy of the associated diff, the page that shows your edit and the revert in question.  I will be happy to help if I can.  Ebikeguy (talk) 22:34, 22 June 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)

Re: Help Reverting a Merge Done In Direct Opposition to Results of Editor Discussion
That merge proposal was discussed and later closed in April. Are there any further discussion between then and the day the merge was done? If not, then the merge/move appears to be done out of thin air and without following proper procedure. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The only related discussion was here. Clearly, this was not the right place to discuss throwing out the results of an extensive and well-attended discussion that resulted in a decision to keep the Focus BEV article, especially since no mention of this subsequent discussion was posted on the Focus BEV talk page.  Also note that there was no consensus in the subsequent discussion, and OSX was warned NOT to delete the Focus BEV article in the subsequent discussion, but he went ahead and did it anyway.  Note also, that OSX now appears to be involved in an edit war regarding another Focus-related article that he is trying to delete without editor consensus.  I warned him about his behavior on his talk page, but he deleted my comment.  Ebikeguy (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Who warned OSX not to merge the Focus BEV article? Can you give me the specific diff(s)? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff that shows the warning. Thanks for your help!  Ebikeguy (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I warned him well in advanced, here on April, 8, and here on June 5 (just before OSX moved the article), to have a separate discussion and that a new one was required since the previous one was closed. Also note that here and here OSX is justifying why he made a new tally and a reinterpretation of the result of the closed merge discussion, arguing that despite having agree with the closing result of keeping the article, his new interpretation and tallying of the votes justifies getting rid of the article without a new merge discussion. There was and still there is no point in convincing him to open a fresh new merge discussion that we believe is the proper thing to do. Also notice that he did NOT post any warning tag in the Ford Focus BEV before moving it, nor in the Ford Focus RS WRC before OSX blanked it, so any interested editor could have had a chance to express its opionion. --Mariordo (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tough call. OSX appears to combine votes from different discussions then there's a potential that the final tally could skew either way. But judging from the after-the-move response, I think that's considered a contested move. The proper way to resolve this is first undo the move so that the discussion can take place. If that move does not occur, then the discussion will be distracted to attributing someone that didn't follow the process instead of commenting on the underlying problem. This is very similar to the recently-closed RfC on pending changes. If pending changes weren't removed from the pages, then the discussions will be sidetracked to "should we keep or remove them from pages" instead of "should we enable or keep it disabled" (which the latter is a much bigger and underlying problem comparing with the former, which is a peripheral problem) OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. However, I am not able to revert the move.  When I try, a message appears telling me that the move cannot be reverted.  Is there a way for me to revert?  Or, if not, can you use your admin tools to do so?  Thanks very much.  Ebikeguy (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cut the appropriate contents out of the page and paste it into the redirect page. Then save both pages. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had thought of that, but I am worried that OSX cut down the contents on the original Focus BEV page, then saved the abbreviated contents before he moved it. If this is the case, I have no access to the entire contents of the Focus BEV page before OSX trimmed them in preparation for the move.  If you could somehow show me the history of the Focus BEV page, I can check to see if OSX gutted it and saved the gutted version before he moved it.  Is there any way to do that?  Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you recall the page's original name? <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 04:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The name is Ford Focus BEV. I already proceeded to restore the page using a cut and page using the history of the article (just before it was moved) as you recommended. However, I took the opportunity to restore it under Ford Focus Electric, considering that Ford changed the electric car name from Focus BEV to Focus Electric when the production version was unveiled in early 2011. Unfortunetally the cut & paste approach lost the page original history, so I am putting a split tag to leave a record of where the previous history is. Also I am planning to open an ANI against OSX considering this is not the first time he destroys content, his disrespects of Wikipedia policies and disregard for the result of a formal closed discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sent you an email. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 20:19, 17 June 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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:32, 8 June 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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)