User talk:TruckCard

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TruckCard, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^Talk 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 Wikipedia and I do not have enough free time to work in English Wikipedia 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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Resident Identity Card. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I also note that you were warned [1] about edit warring, and you quite straightforwardly declined to desist [2]; 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 [3]. 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 Wikipedia jargon. Please stop edit warring in the future, OK? :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[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]] |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[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]] |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

TruckCard (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)