Hmmm Writing in Wikipedia


rvm

rvm

admin
Staff member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
10,695
Car(s)
EK9/Civic
It's a PAIN IN THE ASS writing there, I decided to write and article well my surprise was that the idiot who copy / paste the honda type r article in wikipedia wants to merge my article with his, removing all my content, and only using 1 photo of my original article, my article is complete about the ek9 civic type r, his article only talks about 8 lines about the ek9.

Why this happens ? I think this kind of guys want just to gain traffic to their web pages using wikipedia, and when someone creates a better article than his, they start to **** up other people articles.

Why do I think this??

I added www.ek9.org to the external links section on the honda type r articles, and some guy deleted my link, why? because maybe he earns money with his traffic and wikipedia is a source for traffic, or maybe he is afraid that www.ek9.org is better than his sites? :blabla:

check out the discussion:

merge with EK9 Type R

I feel that the EK9 article should be merged in, currently the article contains little appropriate info not present on this page. The technical specs could be merged in if desired, but I don't really feel that they are encyclopedic. Having a entire page devoted to one trim level of one generation of one model seems a little like overkill to me. Of course if an encyclopedic article were written about the EK9 it would be appropriate, but as it stands it is little more then a stat sheet. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but me and all ek9 honda civic type r lovers want a private space to see information just of the car we love, not just general info of all the cars. So please don't modify our article. rveram.

Please see WP:OWN, there are no private pages. Currently there is no encyclopedic content not covered on the main Type R page that is on the current EK9 page. If you want to have a separate page please add actual content and please do not remove the merge tag until others have had a chance to discuss. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not a private page, its a article only for ek9 honda civic type r information, why should I merge my article with a page that only uses a photo of my original article, please don 't edit it and do what ever you want with your article and leave my article alone. thanks. rveram
 
dude they have wiki pages dedicated to 1 anime charecter!!! is there anything i can do to help? i can send this guy an email to straighten him out if needed, lmk. (i'll be polite of course)
 
ok i had a lil discussion with the guy:

mesasge from blinx9900: hi guys i stumbled across your discussion and i just wanted to say, if the wiki can have an entire page dedicated to 1 Anime character (which is hardly encyclopedic) then it should be 100% acceptable for a single model car to have its own page. i see no reason for the merge. there are a million things on wiki that arent encyclopedic, i think the ek9 page is very informative and should remain "stand alone". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.71.149.220 (talk) 19:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

What is informative about it? It contains largely the same info as the Type R page. Also the presence of other encyclopedic pages is not a reason to keep one. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

message from blinx9900: the only part of the page i disagree with is the mods section which discusses modifications, i would remove that only becuase it is highly subjective and people will have different opinions on what should be dont if any mods at all (i see now that part has been removed). to answer your question about what info i feel is informative: dimensions/weight/bore/stroke/all engine specs/drivetrain/gear ratio's/ also info on suspension/brakes/fuel capacity/ all of the main equipment listed and all of the exterior equipment listed which just made me realize LSD should be under drivetrain, but yeah, it has A LOT of info not covered on the type-r page, if it were merged the all the other type r chasis info would be pale in comparison, uneless we are to add ALL that info for ALL the type r cars, then i could see a merge happening if all the info is retained.
 
blinx9900 said:
What is informative about it? It contains largely the same info as the Type R page. Also the presence of other encyclopedic pages is not a reason to keep one. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Click to expand...
The first reply rvm got was "explanatory" as that's usually what happens in this cases, but as soon as people run out of excuses, they can barely conduct a 2 line answer. What a poor answer he gaved. :angry: This guy Leivick really pissed me off!! :mad: Tell him the whole universe knows about the EK9 and he can keep "his" space for his dog's pic!!
 
ManosEK9 said:
The first reply rvm got was "explanatory" as that's usually what happens in this cases, but as soon as people run out of excuses, they can barely conduct a 2 line answer. What a poor answer he gaved. :angry: This guy Leivick really pissed me off!! :mad: Tell him the whole universe knows about the EK9 and he can keep "his" space for his dog's pic!!
Click to expand...

i agree and he was COMPLETELY wrong!! there is A LOT of info on the ek9 page that the type r page dosent have, the type r page is just a light review, the ek9 page is MUCH more in depth.
 
check out his last response:

A page who's only purpose is to store statistics is a violation of WP:NOT specifically not a collection of statistics. It would be better to link to an off site page that contained the less important stats like bore/stroke and gear ratios. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

he can shove the wp:not **** up his ass! ****er!
 
this guy is an IDIOT, here is my response to that:


message from blinx9900: Statistics? the page lists absolutely NO statistics at all, the page lists specifications, there is a major difference between the two words hence the page is not in violation.
 
He continues to add the merge **** at the top of the article, I don't know why he doesn't want a ek9 only article to exist!
 
After looking at the page, the ek9 section is lacking. We could add some more information to it.

On the bottom of the page there are links to specific type-r forums, but none for just the ek9. I don't see any reason to not add an "ek9 civic type-r forum" link to the bottom, linked to ek9.org.
 
I hate this FUKER

Civic Type R merge

You cannot remove the merge tag until consensus has been reached. You have violated the three revert rule and could be blocked for doing so. Please allow time for consensus to be reached, I would like to work with you on this, but you should read up on policy first, let me know if you have any questions. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there something you don't understand about the merge process? The tag stays up there until consensus is reached sometimes it takes a few weeks. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top