Jump to content

User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

User:Lukeno94/Adam Spence

Hello Lukeno94. This looks good and isn't in the main space. May I ask you why do you wanted to delete it? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • It was deleted via an AfD discussion before, and I'm not 100% convinced it was going to pass notability guidelines in the state it was in - certainly not with the negative actions being undertaken by some WikiProject Motorsport members right now (which is the flashpoint for the Wikibreak I will begin when the March 92S debacle closes). If you want to put it in mainspace though, feel free. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Future car technologies

I don't suppose you'd like to help clean up the red links left behind by future car technologies. ;-) --GentlemanGhost (converse) 10:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Bacon

Hello, Lukeno94.

You are invited to join WikiProject Bacon, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of bacon and bacon-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. NorthAmerica1000 02:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

mediation
Thank you, goalkeeper, for quality contributions to articles on trains, sports and flights, such as Widerøe Flight 710, and for mediation with understanding, "just because someone is foreign, and because they don't attend your place of education, doesn't mean they have no right to edit the article", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 443rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 19#Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 19#Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows. Thanks. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ace those exams

Best of luck, man. It's important to measure what's most important. I'm sure you'll fine. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I expect you'll be back eventually. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Good luck with the exams as well. Vaya con Dios! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Belated apologies

So, some considerable time has passed, and obviously I am now semi-retired. I'd like to apologize for a lot of my actions towards the end of my time as a highly-active member here; I overstepped the mark by a hell of a long way, and helped blow a situation well out of proportion (this primarily being the March 92S debacle). I don't apologize to whoever was hiding behind the Jaggee account, as I still stand by my comments there (and that account's behaviour was what lead to my heightened paranoia and anger) - but to everyone else I pissed off in the motorsport-related saga, I do strongly apologize. I made mistakes in some of the articles I wrote, and edited; and I was unable to take the criticism as it was worded, or the fact that I perceived a situation where people didn't actually care about content, but only cared about driving me off (this part of the apology being aimed at The359 in particular, but Falcadore and Pc13 caught some of that as well, if I remember correctly.) We all made mistakes there, but there's no condoning my behaviour at all. I have no idea if I will ever fully return, and if I do, I would be happy for someone to keep an eye out for any mistakes I make every now and again, as long as they're able to do so in a manner that won't make me fly off the handle in a massive way again! I will, however, do the odd bit of anti-vandalism work as and when I spot it (and indeed, have been doing so on and off since I left.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Honda Civic page edits

Dear User:Lukeno94: The edits made to the above article are legitimate copyedits made by a qualified Wikipedia editor. There are no grounds for reverting them. If you'd like to improve the article further, your assistance will be appreciated by all in the Wikipedia community.

If you have a different view on any individual edit feel free to suggest it; if a consensus finds it preferred it may be made. Thank you. Yours, The Editor of the Indicated Edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.186.6 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI query

A while back you had a run-in with Jaggee. I just opened an DeFacto SPI on user Proprobly here, and based on this edit I'm curious if you think Jaggee might be another DeFacto sock. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I hope this nudges you to becoming more active again, if you still have an interest. When you see DeFacto again (and if you stick around here, I'm sure you will) give me a shout and I offer what assistance I can. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Just browsing through my old article creations and things, ran across a similar case where another account appeared to randomly object to something I did... and they also then seem to have veered off, later on, to edit a metric system-related article. No point naming and shaming a now stale account though, but it might be interesting for you (Lesser Cartographies) to know this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to take a look if you don't mind. Can you sent me the username by email? My concern is that the sock will be eventually reused and, given that it has something of a track record now, might be more difficult to get blocked. If you don't think that's likely (for whatever reason) then I'm happy to let this lie. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I keep falling across too much misinformation and vandalism not to be back. I don't know if I'll get back to writing new articles or not; I do have some ideas, at least (a few interesting old racing motorbikes and cars, perhaps). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding NSONGS and AFD of Rihanna articles, please see here.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#WP:NSONG_needs_re-evaluating_and_re-wording — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For assuming good faith :)

Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I almost fell into the same trap as you did, but after one of the sources in the old version of the article clearly showed that one of the roles wasn't as an uncredited extra, I dug a little deeper. As such, AGF was not hard in this case. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Question

Apologise in advance if I am doing this wrong, I am new to this. So for to understand how would I properly link a movie/play title from a given article to an outside page showing proof of the claim?Sindanda (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Sindanda: The simple answer is that we don't directly link to articles in that manner. In this situation, we would use <ref>Insert web link here</ref> to the right of the movie the person had a role in; and, if there are two square brackets either end of the movie's title (which is a wikilink), you make sure that you do not put that reference inside those brackets, but next to them. I strongly suggest you go and read Wikipedia:Citing sources for more specific details, particularly with regards to reference formatting (it is generally frowned upon to just have a raw link on its own), and I would also recommend that you familiarize yourself with WP:RS, which IMDB does not satisfy. I thank you for asking for assistance, and for also heeding my advice about how to sign posts correctly. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Lukeno94: Thank you for pointing that out, it's a lot to take in so guiding suggestions are always welcome. I have read now the WP:RS and see your point. So to confirm I understand this all correctly. Other than the rare external link it would be better that any film/play which one wishes to link themselves to be in the appropriate Wiki database. That way so long as the given page is in line with WP:RS than the actor(s) page is safe as it is citing an already confirmed wiki page? Sorry again for this, I do read the help material but I have always learned better via a conversation style forum. :) Sindanda (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To reference something in line with WP:RS, you would be looking for an external article on a website that is known to be fairly reliable in its area. So, for example, something like the BBC, or the Guardian would be good examples of generally reliable references; however, there are also references that are reliable for their subject areas. Generally, we avoid blogs (with a few notable exceptions), Wikis, fan sites and tabloid newspapers as references, particularly in a WP:BLP, which Schooley's article is classified as. Local-scale sources (so county or town/city specific) are capable of being reliable (and, indeed, they often are), but they do not count towards notability (again, with a few exceptions, like the New York Times, for example). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Genius

Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_U.S._and_allies_versus_Islamic_State_hostilities_and_conflicts really cheered me up. Thank you Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

ARCA

Re [1] -- your comment would be more helpful to the committee if you'd be willing to take the time to wikilink the ANI threads. NE Ent 15:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also before you make further comments on the clarifications and appeals page please ensure that you read the pink box at the top of the page so you know the expectations for that page. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Alarm bells

My antennae are twitching re: that user you reverted a short time ago. Perhaps I should go digging for dodgy cat specialists. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkpages

Hi, Editors are allowed to remove warnings and block notices on their own talkpage if the want. It is their page. However they should not remove unblock requests and some other tags. More info at WP:OWNTALK and WP:UP#CMT. QED237 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

Hi Lukeno94. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, which was closed as "no consensus". The AfD was taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner where opinions are split between "endorse" and "overturn". I have started an RfC at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the cookies! Tess 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem, User:Tess600. :) By the way, your signature doesn't link to your userpage or talk page, could you please fix it? This can be done by (assuming you're on the desktop version of Wikipedia) going into Preferences, and making sure that the signature says something like [[User:Tess600|Tess]], or [[User talk:Tess600|Tess]]. Thanks in advance :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's the fix: Let's see if this works...Tess, MLIS 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Tess, MLIS
  • Okay, maybe this? User:Tess600 (Thanks for your help.)

The second one works, yes, but there's no datestamp in it :) This is one of the few solid practices that Wikipedia actually has; any posts on talk pages must be signed and dated. Thanks for fixing things! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

CfD

About the Category i created "Songs about cheating", anyway i can help by renaming it, remerging it, uncategorize some of the pages or add better detail of the category???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyrtleKeiferMiller15 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think renaming or remerging it will do anything. Some of those pages probably need to be removed from the category, and the category probably needs to be defined better; but even if it is, I don't think it really is a suitable category. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I am not sure what you mean in Windows Vista article? How is it link spamming? I think I reverted link spamming, if anything.

Am I missing something?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Junaid Jamshed

Dear Lukeno94, I hope life is good. Please can you take a look at the edits on the Junaid Jamshed page, and then at its talk page. One strident editor seems hell-bent on branding him a blasphemer even though no judicial finding has stated that. I just want a neutral page. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lukeno94, I hope you are doing good too. Sir, this editor called GorgeCusterSabre is hellbent upon making edits in order to be favorably inclined towards the living person, ignoring the Neutral point of view (NPOV). Although, the living person has himself admitted on his official Facebook account of committing a blasphemy and then seeking apologies respecting the same blasphemy, and that the Government has registered the case against him, GorgeCusterSabre will still make edits to prove the facts otherwise. Nowhere has this been written that the living person has been "convicted" of blasphemy, ensuring neutrality. Your judicious attention is invited to address this matter. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • TheKnightoftheHeart, please go and discuss this on the article's talk page; there, you can see my viewpoint as an experienced but completely external editor. I do see that you have tried to do what you believe is right, but unfortunately, that isn't necessarily the standard way Wikipedia does things. Also, you need to be careful of the three-revert rule, because you may well violate it if you revert again, and that would risk you being blocked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

re: 99...

Thanks for helping. See this and this list for further insight. Vsmith (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you came back after dealing with many idiots

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This is for your relative calmness in the face of constant personal attacks and POV pushing. So many good editors get fed up; it's nice to see that you're here to stay. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Dirk Kuyt

About your question at WP:AN3. As an admin I prefer not to edit the articles in dispute, unless it's a question of vandalism or BLP. If you think your version has consensus, you can restore it yourself. If the question is still open, ask on the talk page and wait to see if anyone objects. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk)

As an uninvolved 3rd opinion, I would recommend against it.
  • You're not even proposing the restoration of content, you're concerned about the style.
WP:3RR does contain some exceptions for when it's okay to revert beyond the norm. These are mostly concerned with libel, or vandalism. This is neither.
  • 1RR is the principle, 3RR is a bright line.
You're doubtless familiar with the policy, bold, revert, discuss. If the editor in question boldly made a change, then you rightly reverted it, he was wrong to revert your revert. But, barring the exceptions listed above, there was no reason to edit war over it.
There's my $0.02. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm proposing the restoration of the original style, which was both the previously stable version, AND followed the standard practice of WikiProject Football. At least, for the most part; there are some separate issues with that table that are present in both revisions and need sorting out (that's not just an opinion, since the original version has an inconsistency in the style, and both need some clarifications on what "Other" means). I'm well aware of what 3RR states, and BRD, and all of those things; why do you think I asked for the previous stable version to be restored, and why did you need to remind me? It had been that way since June 2012, so two-and-a-half years. Not arguing about the LAME comment you made... but the IP's insistence that it must be better and that I must like it really is even lamer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on all factual counts. The original style is better / follows MoS / follows WikiProject standards. Sorry I came across as a bit of WP:BITE, thanks for your patience in your followup. The only point I aim to make is that it probably could have stopped with 1 revert; it'll get fixed before the deadline, and you'd be in a much better position to, having established consensus, do it yourself.
I even go so far as to take back my original recommendation and sign on as saying that, simply because you care, and have established consensus, you ought to go ahead and do it.
I'm trying to figure out what to say would have been the better option than reverting thrice, but I realized that's a great question to put to you. What is a better option than reverting another editor 3 times, even when he is clearly wrong, as was in this case? Jsharpminor (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure how you could come across as BITEing per-se, since I'm far from a new editor. It could, and should've stopped with one revert, that is correct; sadly, the IP had no interest in stopping and discussing, and I generally tend to favour upholding consensus over other things. The better option would've been discussing on the talk page, but one look at the IP's edit summaries immediately tells me that they had no interest in discussing. As you can see, I've since gone and sorted out the table properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Adminship?

Hi Lukeno94. Would you be interested in running for adminship? I saw this from 6 months ago but I disagree - I think you would make a very good candidate. I'm particularly impressed by your car articles, and in your reviewing your edits I see sound judgement and a thorough grasp of policy. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Whilst I am pleased that you would think this, I still think that it is too soon for me to be an admin. I've only been back on Wikipedia as a regular editor for a couple of months; that would be a mark against any potential RfA right now. It's something that I might be interested in six months or so down the line, depending on exactly how things go. Things have indeed changed since February; my personal life is going much better, and I am indeed rather more level-headed right now than I was back then - but again, I'd like to wait six months for me to see if this improvement will be a long-term thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that your brief absence from Wikipedia would be a large obstacle to adminship - I wouldn't have suggested it if I did. But if you would rather wait six months, then I will of course respect that. Let me know if you feel like running in the meantime, and I'll write you up a good nomination. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User 94.197.46.90

In case you are not aware, the IP has harassed more than one editor. Caden cool 21:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I am indeed aware - I dropped the message there just in case anyone clerking a future AIV report made the statement "user hasn't been warned". The harassment itself is pretty minor at the end of the day, as things go; more amusingly pathetic than anything else. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings

You know what? I decided to call the incident "killings" just to balance, which I prefer to "attacks" or "massacre". Shall I be bold to rename it? --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tagging misfire

Yep, sorry. I try to remove anything that looks wrong as I'm tagging, but things get by me from time to time. Sorry about that. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How you doing?

Hey Luke, I weirdly had your talk page on my watch list and noticed the amount of edits being deleted. Hope you aren't having too much trouble!! Nice to see you back too. If you need any help please do let me know. aycliffetalk 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I made the "mistake" of commenting on someone's talkpage about everyone's favourite troll who goes around calling everyone here anti-Semites (which probably means you'll be targeted next). Most of it happened whilst I was asleep, and even when I'm not, I just find it amusing really. My talkpage is on a fair few admin's watchlists (even more so now), so it gets shut down pretty quickly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Which troll is this? Adding your talk page to my watchlist now. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course, I should have guessed. I've also got at least one mysterious one who I think even created a fake FB page once attacking me. Pathetic. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello Lukeno94, you may recall we collaborated on the Junaid Jamshed article a while back. I was hoping you could help me as I am new. The article on pharmacological torture was a stub when I started on it and I do not know if it still counts as a stub. Mind you, it still needs a lot of work doing. Before I started it looked like this:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pharmacological_torture&oldid=637565222

And now it is like this:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pharmacological_torture

I though of adding in the expand template and removing the stub one but I can not find an exapand template that applies to the entire page. Your help would be appreciated. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • That's not a stub anymore, Mbcap; it is a start class article in my opinion. There's no real "hard and fast" way of determining it, although obviously a one-liner is going to always be a stub. I don't think there are any expand templates that apply to the whole page; there used to be, but the template was deprecated in 2010 after a fairly tight discussion. I think it is generally a given that most articles below C class need expansion if at all possible, so the tag is probably redundant anyway. If you do want a template, then put the "expand section" template below the "Past documented cases by country" heading. Good job on the expansion by the way, that's definitely a big improvement. My main quibble is that your section headings don't comply with the WP:MOS, so please remove the italicizing from them. The USSR bit could do with more in-line referencing for the drugs used, and those drugs need wikilinking. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I shall implement those changes as soon as. Mbcap (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Shills

Hi! at arbcom you wrote "Wikipedia has enough paid shills as it is; we should be actively banning the ones who do get caught (this is not the same as paid editing, by the way)". I am not quite sure what the difference is. Are we differentiating declared paid/COI editors who follow Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide with stealth paid editors who do everything they can to not be identified as paid/COI editors? Or is this something else? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • In my mind, there is indeed a subtle difference. To me, a paid shill is a paid editor, but a paid editor is not necessarily a paid shill. Let me explain what I mean by that. A paid shill is going to edit in a favourable manner towards their client; be it by directly "bigging up" their client's achievements or hiding their mis-steps, or by belittling their opponents/rivals. Meanwhile, a paid editor could potentially just be being paid to update an article, or could be paid and instructed to keep things neutral. It is definitely possible to have a COI, paid or unpaid, and still write/edit in a neutral manner. All it takes is a bit of self-restraint, unless the COI is extremely strong (ie, Employee X stole some of your company's assets, and your bosses will fire you unless you show him in as negative a light as possible). There are a few editors whom I can think of whom engage in publicly-acknowledged paid editing without being overtly biased. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

nomination for deletion

The pages I nominated had no information or references to prove notability. Most only had one sentence. It didn't take long to assess each page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makro (talk • contribs) 23:38, 26 December 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Firstly, you need to do more than just look at the article; you need to engage in, at the very least, a proper Google search. Read WP:BEFORE before nominating any more articles for deletion, as it is a requirement. Secondly, you need to sign your posts using four tildes, like ~~~~, and this is also a requirement. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Firstly I did check google, FYI if the person who created page couldn't find any sources then they probably don't exist. Secondly I used twinkle which didn't give me the chance to sign.Makro (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Part 1; many people are lazy when creating articles, and your comment is based on a misunderstanding of how Google works; besides, sources could've appeared since then. I seriously doubt you had time to look through Google properly if you're nominating things in two-minute increments. The second part was related to your initial comment here; I see that you have signed your second one, and I thank you for it. I hope this doesn't put you off editing, but there are a few things that are close to rules, and you do need to know them and follow them. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

EA Falcon

I see you reverted the EA Falcon page changes I made today. I had structured the page on the existing page build where possible and I was learning how to reference the information provided which was sourced from manufacturer publications, press info, and owner / service manuals. I'm a bit slow as I'm learning the code from looking at other pages and sections. Should I continue or is that pointless for Wikipedia? I don't really wish to spend significant time if the information is not a fit for Wikipedia? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petera general (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • If you have access to those manuals, then yes, please do so. Some of the information is excessive; for example, we don't generally need information on how the tyres changed, and the bore/stroke shouldn't be to any more than one decimal place. Also, thanks for coming here to discuss things Petera general; that's what we're supposed to do when reverted on Wikipedia. Thanks for your contribution - that article definitely needed the improvements, and if you cite your sources, it'll be a heck of a lot better off for it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

John Ducas

Thanks for your comments about John Ducas (investor) at the AfD and the SPI, and for your edit to the article. Would you mind putting that article on your watchlist (if it is kept after the AfD)? I have the impression I am the only regular editor watching that article, and I am often offline for days or weeks at a time, leaving it unprotected from IP attacks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

DTM Car Articles

Thank you for your response Luke and insightful info (as well as your recent edits to the A4/A5 pages). I probably should leave a message on their talk page, as there are many more articles that have User:TheriusRooney's extremely detailed template that need work. Cheers --Stratocaster27t@lk 05:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Not a problem; ANI wasn't the place for you to go straight off the bat, as you hadn't attempted to discuss it with the user (I agree that they're unlikely to respond, but you have to at least try). The user is clearly acting in good faith, as I stated; but they haven't quite grasped exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ford GT40

Dear Luke

Thank you for your comments regarding my latest uploads to the Ford GT40 page.

Firstly, my apologies if you consider my uploads to be "excess unsourced information". I would, however, ask that you consider that my source is the CEO of Cape Advanced Vehicles and I endeavour to update only relevant material in a sentence or two as/when new information becomes available. For example, I know that CAV will launch a new platform for their cars in 2015, and that they are working on new engines. This info will be uploaded to their website and, when this is done, I would like to update Wikipedia accordingly. These are significant steps that differentiate CAV from the other cars in the article. As such, I consider it to be quite relevant to the completeness of the article.

Regarding the photo, none of the other replicas are shown to have rights to the Gulf Oil livery. If you are unfamiliar, it is not trivial that CAV has these rights. Furthermore, none of the other cars show the Gurney bubble in the roof. Any GT40 enthusiast will be pleased that the replicas are retaining this iconic feature. In my opinion, these aspects are entirely relevant and worthy of an additional photo.

As such, I ask that you please replace that which you have removed from the article at your earliest convenience. If you still do not feel that it is justified, please let me know.

Regards Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by AF5702 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • It is my personal opinion, Jay, that all of the replicas of the GT40 should be split out of the main article; they don't really belong there in that level of detail, and it is something I will look into in the near future. Compare it to AC Cobra, which mentions replicas, but does not detail them. It is also my opinion that any notable replicas should have their own articles, and I definitely agree that the CAV GT40 is notable - perhaps you could look into writing an article on it? I'd be more than willing to look over it if you wrote it, and see how it compares to our sourcing standards. Also, thanks for coming here to discuss this in a calm and sensible manner; not all users are capable of that, and we need more people who are willing to do so! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. You make a good point about separating the replicas from the main Ford GT40 page. I have simply posted these amendments on this page because it is the only apparent Wikipedia resource where the replicas are noted. However, I will talk to the CEO of CAV and see if they would like to compose something to be published on a dedicated CAV page. I'm sure they would like the idea. As/when an article is finalised, I will pass it to you for review. Thank you for offering to help. I would also appreciate your input regarding the best way to publish a dedicated CAV page and indeed link to it from the Ford GT40 page (in the Replicas section). I am not too familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia, so your assistance will be very much appreciated in this regard. Regards, Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by AF5702 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think a dedicated CAV page is justified as well, Jay. It is a good idea to speak to CAV's CEO to check the factual accuracy of the page, but remember that articles must be kept as neutral as possible, so make sure that he is aware that this is the case - hopefully he'll understand that just the mere existence of such a page would be beneficial. I'd suggest reading WP:COI as this appears to be relevant to your case, but it isn't a major issue as long as you keep the article/articles as neutral as possible and you take the advice of neutral Wikipedians on board. The best place to start the article is in your userspace; so, for example, the car's article could be located at User:AF5702/CAV GT40, and you could then work on it whenever you want, without fear of it being deleted. Also, a further note about talk page policy on Wikipedia; please sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end, as per WP:SIG. That page will also tell you how to customize your signature, if you so desire. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits

[3] I'm not new, I've just edited from lots of different IPs. 154.127.48.6 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Grewia

I feel the need take you up on you "recommendation" to tell you off here for some your comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reddon666 regarding Grewia. I'll agree their edit history looks a little suspicious, but unless you've found something to concretely link them to another account, I should point out that unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are generally considered personal attacks. I've I had my own issues dealing with them, and suggest that we simply assume good faith for now and let there more ridiculous assertions speak for themselves. Happy new year. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it's obvious enough that they aren't legit for it not to be a personal attack; the absence of a solid account to link them to doesn't change that in my opinion. Still, I will back off them for now on that front, the SPI seems to have its own direction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione opened

You recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

M3 CSL

Hi

Why did you revert the changes on the M3 CSL page ? The information I have is correct and what the page currently has is wrong. I am talking as an M3 CSL owner the last 6 years and I know all the information in and out about the M3 CSL.

Best regards, Alexk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexk64 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It's quite simple; Wikipedia needs reliable sources for any changes made. I compared your edits to some of the sources in the article, and your changes went against those (particularly the bit about the brakes, as you'll see from my edit summary). I'm afraid your six years of ownership doesn't count as a reliable source, but if you do know of reliable sources for your changes, then please feel free to reference them :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but that sounds ridiculous, so what do I need to do then ? The majority of these online articles have very bad information and in fact no one ever saw a CSL live. I have here all the different parts between an M3 CSL and a simple M3 E46 -> http://www.clubcsl.com/index.php/m3csl/6-m3-csl-differences Shall I provide URLs of the online BMW parts catalogue where someone can verify everything that I am saying ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexk64 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok I see. No need to bother then... I will also delete my photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexk64 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Williams

Hi Luke

I hope you are well.

I am trying to ammend the page so it is more up-to date as the information in regards to the Williams Advanced Engineering arn of the group is not correct.

I am the Marketing Executive at Williams Advanced Engineering. If i am able to provide you with the correct information would you like to alter the page?

Please email me back via wiki or email sundeep.sahota@williamsf1.com

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnySahotaWilliams (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello Sunny. Whilst I appreciate what you're trying to do, you're going about it the wrong way entirely. Blanking things is not helpful; instead, you should be stating what has changed. In the Hybrid Power section, for example, you should've stated that it had been sold to another company, using a reliable source to do so - just as I did. After all, the information that was present wasn't (completely) inaccurate, and it was relevant. Likewise, you should note that the technology centre was closed down rather than just removing any mention of it. Also, I recommend you read WP:COI, as this applies to you here. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Using font tags in your signature

Hello there! I'm working on a project trying to bring most of the coding on Wikipedia up to the most current standards (HTML5), and I noticed that your signature is using <font>...</font> tags which were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, marked as invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all. I'd love to help you update your signature to use newer code, and if you're interested, I suggest replacing: 

[[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:navy;">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick;">no</span><span style="color:green;">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]]

with: 

[[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:Navy">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick">no</span><span style="color:Green">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]]

which will result in a 183 character long signature with an appearance of: Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)compared to your existing 165 character long signature of: Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) — Either way. Happy editing! Darylgolden(talk) 12:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 

[[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:Navy">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick">no</span><span style="color:Green">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]]

Ford Capri

Hello , I wanted to talk abot me editing the Ford Cari article , I kept on editing it because one of the power ratings for the 3.0l engine is wrong because instead of 136hp it makes 138hp , since all I do gets deleted could you change it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright I've changed it again but I've cited my sources with a reference , will it still get deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello , it's me again . there is an error I've tried to correct in the capri mk2 engine section where the 2.8l engine doesn't appear, could you add it? I have tried but couldn't make it work . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talk • contribs) 10:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Here is the source for the 2.8 :http://www.ford-capri.ch/technics/technical-data-II/2800-75-77-e.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid, Laurie, I can't see where you've tried to add the 2.8 litre engine in anywhere. However, the 2.8 engine technically shouldn't be in the Capri II section, because it was only used on the Mercury Capri, and that car has a separate article. This is why the 2.3-litre Pinto isn't mentioned anywhere in the Capri II infobox. As such, I'm going to remove the Capri 2.8 from the infobox :)
  • Also, a couple of notes; please keep all your messages about the Capri in this section, rather than starting new ones, and please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), thanks. I agree with your updated Capri II image; it is indeed better than the old one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Portsmouth FC

Hello, I've just seen that you reverted my edits to the Portsmouth F.C. page, and you commented 'Sorry, but that's not an improvement; in fact, it is objectively worse in terms of grammar.' Of the several changes I made, all of which you reverted, which do you consider wrong: — Using 'fewer' rather than 'less' when describing a quantifiable number? — Altering the tense from present to past when historical events are being discussed? — Something else? If you object to one change but not all, would you explain why you just clicked on 'revert' rather than editing selectively?

Best wishes, Eric Blatant (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, it does look, Eric, that I partially misjudged it by getting the two before/after sides mixed up, and as such, I've reinstated some of your changes (some of them with further tweaks). However, I'm not convinced that one fewer goal or one less goal really makes a massive difference in this particular context, you violated WP:OVERLINK by linking in Avram Grant a second time, replacing "as their CEO" with "as the CEO" wasn't a good idea in that context, Director of Football should be capitalized IMO, and you broke a "<small>" tag. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

hey

I just replied to you at ANI. I apologize again as I summoned you by accident. As per my note there, feel free to strike your name from my comment, as well as the ensuing exchange if you like. Sorry. DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, my apologies again. DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For all the support from you during the recent trouble with an aggressive sock farm. Thank you! kashmiri TALK 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist

Hey Lukeno94, thanks for the assist here. This user is being problematic, and I opened an AIV report that's been percolating all day. Not sure if it will be tended to or archived by a bot, but this user isn't responsive to input, and I think there may be a language barrier. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem :) One of my issues with AIV is that a block often has to be "super obvious", or an admin simply won't deal with it. I would consider this one to be fairly obvious... but the editor hasn't gone around calling a bunch of people shitheads, so most AIV admins won't deal with it. Obviously, if AIV doesn't deal with it, the next step is either AN3 or ANI, depending on exactly what state the edit warring is in at that point. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ched Evans

Hello, firstly before we get into a removal war, I wanted to put my point across on the Ched Evans page. Yes, I understand what you are getting at but I don't think the removal of whole "Grimsby Town" chapter is correct. There after all several verified articles linked to the statements and so forth and perhaps that this move was quahsed fairly quickly and in the space of day maybe means that's why it hasn't gained any national media attention yet. Even so if over the next few weeks Evan's has similar situations to the Grimsby one but with other clubs than I agree that perhaps the chapter be removed and be shortened to include all of the other clubs. But at the moment I see no real reason not to include the chapter in the article until a time comes to maybe downsize it to be included in another chapter. On the other side of the coin and away from Wikipedia, being a season ticket holder at Grimsby Town I've heard the club may end up still offering a deal to Evans, so I wouldn't shoot this off as a pointless bit of journalism in a local paper yet. The story may only be in the Lincolnshire area but I still feel its valid and still warrants inclusion on this article due to being on verified media sources. Kind Regards Footballgy (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • At the end of the day, we have an enormous WP:UNDUE weight problem with all of this transfer speculation, and personally I think there was too much in there already. The simple fact of the matter is that this Grimsby Town link has only drawn coverage from Grimsby's local paper, and not only that, the only people whom have even commentated on it are directly linked to the club, or the proposed deal. Most football articles carry as little transfer speculation as possible, and this one has almost every single link that has been made. I would strongly recommend that you self-revert, Footballgy, because the link simply isn't notable. There's no evidence that this was even a real thing anyway, and not just Grimsby Town looking for a bit of the publicity gravy train. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

chaining of the keepers number

http://www.lcfc.com/news/article/picture-gallery-training-2189833.aspx picture 13 training shirt show number — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcfcnsk (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok cheers normal it is but I will wait till tomorrow to edit in the correct number — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcfcnsk (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced genre

Can you keep an eye on What About Love (Austin Mahone song)? Someone added unsourced genre. 115.164.55.203 (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY discussion

Hi there LUKE, all well?

I have already left a second note on this discussion (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Counters_in_players.27_honours), leaving more input and an apology, and also who I was before I was "reduced" to this IP.

Simple question, that you can answer here, on my page or at the discussion: are runner-up positions in LEAGUES also now included. If so, I apologize for not knowing that and mislead others.

Attentively, happy 2015 --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Flyer (pamphlet)

Your turn BMK (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Gone Home

You say that user score is not a reliable source. Source of what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.108.169 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • We do not include user scores on anything, because they are not reliable. It is extremely easy to abuse the system to overwhelmingly create positive or negative feedback, and, equally, Joe Public is not a trusted games journalist/reviewer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VanishedUser_sdu8asdasd/Archive_15&oldid=1161094032"