User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 18

Opel Kadett A

You're aware that the Kadett is one of the lamest cars ever built, right? At least Dennis Brown wrote about muscle cars! :) 207.157.121.52 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure where our paths have crossed - could you tell me which user you are, please? :) I haven't written very much about the Kadett A - it was literally just a copy-paste split, as indicated in the edit summary, with various relevant tidy-ups occurring. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No, I'm super-secret. But I will tell you that my mother once had an Opel Kadett C, blue, and I'll even give you the license plate: 96-SH-55. Good luck sleuthing! 207.157.121.52 (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Luke, you have rollback and all those fancy tools; I'm just IP slumming. Can you figure out who the good guys and the bad guys are at Wolfstone? Thanks, 207.157.121.52 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I have rollback, but in such a shambles, it really won't help; Twinkle will, however. That's a complete mess, and I've reverted to what I hope is the version prior to the vandalism, and watchlisted the article. I'll go and request semi-protection as well (it'll overload Pending Changes), but that will prevent you from editing it without an account. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • We did the exact same thing at the exact same time! Well, you beat me by a second, maybe. Thanks. It might be 4chan. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 4chan can be a pain in the backside, it could also be some of the parts of Reddit, or anything like that :) It's refreshing to see a good-faith IP, in times where 99% of IP edits I see are vandalism, insertion of factually incorrect edits, or generally are otherwise completely unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I changed my mind: not 4chan, just three jackasses and nobody paying attention. Keep fighting the good fight, Luke. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
96-SH-55 sounds a lot like Holland to me. Luke, thanks for the split. I will try to flesh out the D and the E sections to the point where another split is necessary. By the way, is there a consensus on how an infobox should look for a "partial entry" such as the case is for the A, B, and C models at Opel Kadett? They ought to be shortened I feel.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Plus many thanks for splitting the Kadett entry as you did. It's been on my list of things that needed doing for yonks, but you actually did it.
The Netherlands is one of the few countries where the Kadett regularly outsold the Golf when the two went head to head all round most of western Europe, so I imagine there are plenty of Dutch mothers whose sons and daughters thought Mom had chosen a lame car. That's Moms for you. But the Golf tended to be a tad more expensive even if you were able to negotiate a discount of some sort, and unless you had a GTI (huge fun to drive, I remember from when I borrowed the boss's) the Golf wasn't exactly a ball of fire either. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No problem with regards to the split. When I made my first edit to the page, I didn't realize just how big it was until I clicked save! Obviously a lot of work is going to be needed on the main article and sub-article, but it's definitely an improvement now. As for the infoboxes, well, I don't know. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Greaves Motorsport

The article Greaves Motorsport you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Greaves Motorsport for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Coventry Climax FPE

Thanks for your attention on the Climax article. I know Autosport forum is 'generally' not reliable, and used only those info I judged to be credible. I'd leave the article as is for now, but if you could spend some time reading through the thread, I hope you might agree on the credibility of the sources and info I used selectively. I would appreciate your reverting it back then (with Tecalemit Jackson spelled correctly :).
We know not all info on Wikipedia are reliable, and yet we do not dismiss the entire Wikipedia as being unreliable. Any source of info should be used with the same "some info are good and some are bad, so view them with a grain of salt" attitude, and not with automatic acceptance or automatic rejection. FYI, Doug Nye contributed to the thread and Peter Morley is a previous owner of Shannon SH1. Yiba (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, if you could find some of the sources they're citing their info from, or directly cite Nye's and Morley's comments (I will confess to not checking in-depth exactly what you were sourcing things to - just the fact it was a forum), then that may be more acceptable. :) By all means feel free to re-correct any spelling errors, of course. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

paying you or something

Wow! did not expect to see that written out loud. Such a ridiculous argument to keep gives one pause, though. Dlohcierekim 01:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not afraid to say exactly what I think, and the fact that the argument was so bizarre does kinda make you wonder... :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Question RE your comment at the Henry Earl DRV

Hi, I was interested about this comment you made at the DRV. I certainly don't dispute that Warden has been disruptive for years, but this is the first I've heard of him being a returning sockpuppet. What are the details here, or is it possible you have mistaken Warden for some other dubious ARS type? Cheers, Reyk YO! 04:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Colonel Warden has been found to be a sockpuppet of an User:Andrew Davidson; [1] being one of the smoking guns. Beyond that, Warden has frequently disrupted RfAs and AfDs with inappropriate comments; look at the hatted section on Callanecc's RfA, for example. The Andrew Davidson account is blocked, although the Colonel Warden account isn't; the latter hasn't been used since the block. The evidence was found off-site, at Wikipediocracy, but there was no actual outing; all evidence was clearly visible on Wiki, and there was a fair bit of it as well; even the name "Warden" is an anagram of "Andrew". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Cheers. I don't read Wikipediocracy, so I wasn't aware, although the Andrew Davidson name rings a dim bell. This has come up before, I'm sure. As for his other activities, I definitely agree with you that he talks extraordinary amounts of disingenuous crap. Reyk YO! 10:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Andrew Davidson is/was a member of the Wikimedia UK, which may be why the name is a little familiar. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ford GT40

here are the rules:- Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks As you are clearly impolite, unwelcoming and confrontational then you yourself are in breach of these fundemental rules so its a shame that hippocritical people such as this are attempting to police data which is intelf highly innaccurate but the priority of the individuals is to run away on ego trips rather than deal with the actual errors in the data and seek to improve the information contained on Wikipedia Is the sole purpose of your existance to work towards allowing data to be corrected or is it to attempt to bully people? I think the former but you seems to be steering toards the latter. The info is cited from Ronnie Spains personal data. The book itself is, as yet, unpublished but will be towrads the end of 2014. Please contact him should you have any doubt about anything. And as for your 'last warning' this suggests a first and maybe second warning has been given but as you are mistaken on both accounts then your message is nothing but an arrogant and unprofessional threat which is really very very very sad situation all round on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford GT40 X-1 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • You've reinserted the same information several times now, and haven't sourced it correctly once. You haven't provided any proof of the existence of this book, nor have you provided any evidence that it is ever going to satisfy WP:RS. And, as a result, your edits violate WP:OR; you also add in speculation that is utterly irrelevant to the article, and add WP:UNDUE weight to the subject; the information already provided in the article was, and still is, sufficient, and seems to be fairly accurate to boot. Given the incoherence of your commentary here, and the sheer number of spelling errors, I also get the feeling that you have lifted all of the text verbatim from the book, which is also a policy violation. WP:NPA has not been violated at any point by me; "assume good faith" is not a suicide pact, and when an editor is clearly adding the same edit over and over, without trying to address any concerns raised... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Red Pen of Doom

The Red Pen of Doom has a disliking for the term "Controversy", as seen in Thuppakki. Because of that, he alters the entire article, making it look bad. Though no editor condemned the section (not even the GA reviewer), he alone does. Should I succumb to his interests or report his actions? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Kailash29792, same thing happened with Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!, he's doing that citing WP:STRUCTURE which is probably right. At first I was a bit angry too but then I read the policy and discussed it with him. I suggest you do the same too, it'll help solve any misunderstanding between you two. Soham 08:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no issue with him moving the text elsewhere in the article; it was the wholesale blanking that I took issue with (bearing in mind that said blanking immediately adds a positive bias into the article) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting G-Zay's recent edits. His most recent diatribe falls nothing short of harassment. Keep up the good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

football jersey...

you know how to make soccer jersey like this? http://prntscr.com/2ci9er ,if can teach me :) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakcikfarhan (talk • contribs) 02:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Mclaren F1

May I ask what is not notable about the Mclaren F1 getting replicated? I provided reputable sources in my citations like the mirror and the daily mail uk. Asaifm (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Uh, the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail are about as far from "reputable sources" as you can possibly get... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
@Lukeno94 Hmm, so what sources would you site as reputable? And what kind of improvements would you like to see so as to not revert the changes? Asaifm (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems like I'm was using a subjective word here let us forget reputable and use citable. Would Yahoo Autos and msn uk make the cut for you? Asaifm (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • In a word, no. It's a common-or-garden amateur build, which, even if it gets a smattering of brief press, is never notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Soham (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

. Soham (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

John Mclaughlin

Hi there, I saw you removed sourced content from John McLaughlin with the edit summary "unrescuable". Could you please elaborate? Thanks, Beerest 2 talk 01:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd tried to clean it up previously, but failed. It's not particularly encyclopedic anyway, and there's no need for the names of all the non-notable children. Also, check out the source; the names Julian, Shannon, Jordan and Jay don't appear in it anywhere. So it wasn't actually source at all, apart from his wife's name, and the six-year-old son - whose name, due to his age, shouldn't really be in the article anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Red Bull X2010

I refer you to the talk page of the car where the validity of these template was discussed previously. Perhaps you would like to revisit the previously achieved consensus? And yes it is fictional. A mock-up is exactly that, a mockery of the idea. --Falcadore (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is a consensus there? Two people contributed, yourself and Bakkster Man, and neither of you agreed. Given that I also think the infobox belongs in the article, consensus is actually against you... Also, I don't think you quite understand what the word "mockery" means... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean?

What do you mean by "they've" here? Are you saying there are socks involved? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doge_%28meme%29&oldid=587258234 [citation needed] 18:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

your latest revert edit

hi you reverted here about 3 rounds worth of editing with no explanation. any reason? --SuperJew (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Because my computer is being stupid at the moment - I thought I'd stopped the revert, and my watchlist didn't show it, so I didn't go back to fix it. Sorry! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Flow feedback request

Hi Lukeno94. Re: your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Straw poll, I was wondering if you'd like to elaborate on or discuss any particular aspects of the various issues? Are your concerns with specific parts of Flow's current set of features or design? Or are they more abstract concerns? (Note: I've been a Wikipedian since 2005, and was only recently (Sept.) contracted to be a part-time community liaison - hence it's my task to investigate and understand all community concerns, and assist in communication back-and-forth between everyone involved.)

As I wrote elsewhere: the Flow team really does want to meet our (the various and diverse communities) needs, but they need our feedback and ideas to do so. The more feature ideas they have, and the more descriptions of problems & perspectives they have, the better (and faster) Flow will morph into what we all need. They're trying to improve some very tough complex and intertwined issues, and they need all the insights we can bring. Best wishes, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

  • A mixture of a lot of things. It looks horrendous. It's clunky. It is extremely restrictive in what it allows you to do. It will be forced down our throats whether we like it or not (and don't try and tell me otherwise; I've seen the stunts you at the WMF have pulled). And I have absolutely no confidence that it will even work, particularly after the VisualEditor debacle. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Luke (just chipping in briefly - I'll leave you and Quiddity to chat after this ;p)
It's worth noting that the Flow team is distinct from the VE team - we have different pressures, different priorities. One of our priorities is getting community feedback and actual buy-in before deploying software: that's what these straw polls are about. If we were just planning to force things on the community, we wouldn't be having the straw polls to start with - nor would we be building a system that can be turned off if people don't like using it. The WMF is a relatively big organisation trying to do a lot of things, and we have successes as well as failures. You point to the VE; I point to Page Curation. Both are WMF projects, but they were built by different teams and received a different reception - there's a causative relationship there. We're the people who built Page Curation.
Eventually, it's true, Flow will be required everywhere. But that's a long way off (years, not months), and it's the inevitable outcome of any software project on this sort of scale. Simply refuting it won't change that. One of the comments I really like from the VG discussion is Ferret's - he argues that the best way to enact changes to software is to get in early. I think he's right, and that for people interested in reducing the disruption Flow can cause, accepting it at an early stage so feedback can be given when there's less inertia around the project is A Good Thing. I say this as someone who has a lot of critiques of the system (and as someone who has a lot of critiques of a lot of the WMF's software). So if you want it to be better than it is, it's in your interest to get widespread testing and give feedback early on.
Regarding Flow itself - What you see in the live-software now is just the minimal beginning. With our feedback, it will grow into a discussion system that does meet all our needs. The only fundamental change is making each comment an individual element, which matches almost every other discussion system (from email to forums to IM systems). The look and design are changeable (some editors have stated they like all the aesthetic changes and UI additions, some like a few of the changes, some dislike all the changes, and some editors have suggested new changes), the editing restrictions are changeable (it's specifically noted as "experimental" in the Flow FAQ). It has to meet our needs, in a way that VE doesn't, because the VE is ultimately optional. So, if you've got problems with the software (be it the workflow, the UI, the clunkiness), we really do welcome your feedback. What things are ugly to you? What things are slow, on what OS, on what browser? We're having this straw poll because we want to know, and we want to make it work for experienced users as well as newcomers.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know the VE and Flow teams are separate; however, when one set is clearly incompetent and when you're both employed by the same organization, it's hardly surprising I have next-to-no faith in either project. I have used a Flow prototype, and found it to be clunky, aesthetically inferior, with an odd structure. The fact it, like VE, has been deliberately designed to be incompatible with existing methods means that everything people know now will be irrelevant, and that is not a good place to be; extra coding required, with more potential for problems, and forcing long-standing practices to change for the sake of change. There is no reason to force the two to be separate; you simply use existing level two and three headings in Wikitext as your section definers for Flow, and all people can then use whichever method they choose. This would not even be a hard thing to code, or demanding on resources. It appears the WMF have not learned any of the lessons in the VE mess, or from Microsoft's problems with Windows 8 - the latter being entirely relevant due to its new UI being one of the most notable problems. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Trying to force structure on freeform wikitext just leads to LQT-like things, and we know how well that went ;). If you can't see any difference between what happened with the VE and what's happening with Flow, I think you need to look closer, but it's entirely up to you how much you engage. I was just trying to reach out. </wanders off> Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Some insights on Abigail Taylor's death

Hi there, I noticed you commented on the Death of Abigail Taylor AfD page. Now I know the article is very confusing and conflicting but I remember hearing a lot about this event so I did some extensive research to try to clarify the confusion. Given the new details I hope you can reconsider your view on this article. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 20:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Great job as always Itsalleasy (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'm glad you liked the page :) (for any random stalkers that I may have, this almost certainly refers to Roger Dowson Engineering, which I wrote and Itsalleasy curated/reviewed; it predated the autopatrolled status on my main account) Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 15:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For writing Zytek Z11SN - a wonderfully referenced article. Ironholds (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Newman Image

I've started a discussion about the infobox image on Paul Newman which you might like to contribute to, so that a clear consensus about which image to use can be reached.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

hey

Why did you deleted the thing that I wrote? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNK_%C5%A0ibenik I think that there is no reason for deleting because I just added the player that is capped at full international level and you deleted it probably because you dont follow Croatian football... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalmatinac12345 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Your other edits were vandalism, so I treated you as a vandalism-only account. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 13:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Please don't interfere with my tests.—cyberpower ChatOnline 18:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Firstly, you shouldn't be editing such a highly visible page as a test, and you know that. Secondly, how on earth was anyone supposed to determine it was a test? It looked like some random IP had wandered in, posted a hoax request with your signature, and gotten blocked as a result. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 18:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    Firstly I was fixing a bot bug, meaning I needed to place a test request there. Secondly, look at the history and you'll see that I placed it there, saying it was a test. I'm not sure how you get to an IP, or who got blocked. The bot had a bug where linking to blocked users in your request will cause the bot to flag the requester as blocked and I needed to place that test request there to make sure the was doing that anymore.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Surely you should have an appropriate testing location for your bots, given how many you run, and not highly visible pages? As to how I "got to an IP, or who got blocked" - well, your bot gave a "the posting user was blocked" message. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, that was the error I was trying to fix. :p I have now.—cyberpower ChatOffline 20:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16

Thank you for your prompt action on the Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. However, I am afraid that you only went back to December 20, 2013 edit. You needed to back to the 20:15, 13 December 2013‎ 161.43.248.205.--RAF910 (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • D'oh. I'd tried to do that, but evidently misfired. Thanks for bringing it up! Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 21:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you it's nice to see the system work the way it is supposed to work.--RAF910 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't count your chickens just yet, because this kind of user will probably pop up to do something else disruptive here. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 22:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

He's back and reverted you edits. Also, please look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and User talk:Krutoi dezigner. I think you will find it interesting.--RAF910 (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I've been mostly watching the ANI thread, and call me a cynic, call me jaded or whatever, but I knew this would pop up again. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 11:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Re this, sockpuppeteer? He has a bunch of prior accounts listed, but where is he socking? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If he keeps changing accounts in order to evade scrutiny, which appears to be the case, he's socking. When I get back home, I'll investigate more carefully and decide if an SPI is warranted. Either way, the 24 hour block on this account is clearly insufficient, given the evidence of WP:NOTHERE; persistent abuse, and POV-pushing the WP:TRUTH. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 11:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Newest account was Dec 20 and immediately self identified on his user page. Prior was the G PIv one, Nov '12 to March '13, blocked once in February but only mildly. Just stopped editing with it. No evidence of excess warnings etc. haven't checked the older one, but ... With thd self-identification I see nothing wrong here, no attrmpt to fvade, no timeline or prior account cloud, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
He is blocked again for personal attacks and the like, however, he pointed out these, three and diffs.
Those edit summaries are unnecessarily confrontational and head into being personal attacks. Not useful or necessary... Please don't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Lukeno94

Soham — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Benefits of discussion

Hi Luke, Happy New Year. I just thought I'd follow up your last comment on the Paul Newman talk page with my reason for starting the discussion. On seeing User talk:Drmies#Paul Newman, I was surprised that you hadn't tried to discuss the issue on the article talk page; "Which image should go in the infobox?" is particularly well suited to a talk page discussion. I hope that you now have a better appreciation for why it is better to start a discussion rather than repeatedly revert other editors, and will consider being the first to start a talk page discussion in future. Thank you.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Allard J2X-C/GA1

I'm sure the bot will come along and repeat this far more impersonally, but I have reviewed the GA nomination of this article, and have placed it on hold pending resolution of some very small issues. Cheers! Resolute 03:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Allard J2X-C

The article Allard J2X-C you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Allard J2X-C for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Resolute -- Resolute (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Gedion Zelalem

As I said here, there's no need to be quite so aggressive in your response to my query. Please remember to AGF in future. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Given how much work I put in to that article, to see someone being so lazy in dismissing the entire thing, is it hardly a surprise? AGF is not a suicide pact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Allard J2X at ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#URGENT: potential serious copyright policy violation. I missed this as well, but it does appear that at least one citation will have to be replaced. Resolute 21:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Responded there, and made it clear just how pissed off I am at the handling of this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • So I see. My impression is that "Jaggee" came from outside Wikipedia and found instructions at WP:Copyright violations. I do think they meant well, though the whole "URGENT" bit was over the top, but it would have been nice if they had followed the first suggestion and inquired on the article talk page. Glad it's resolved, however. Cheers! Resolute 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to apologize here to User:Black Kite, because they happened to end up on the end of my wrath, and they didn't really deserve it. I'm still livid at the Jaggee's accounts actions (particularly how they suddenly appeared during the GA review, that's the bit that really gets me), but there we go. I do sometimes wonder why I bother, but let's not go into WP:DIVA territory (at least, no further than I already have done...) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Pointer

[2] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Don't worry, I'm aware of this user's ranting. No way on earth are they a new user, and I'd love to know how they suddenly appeared on an article during its GA review, when it had been sat in a queue for ages. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe they are a new user. Can't really tell. Anyway, congrats with your GA. Epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If they're a new user, I would be very surprised. Thanks, that's the second article I've written from scratch that is now at GA. Hence my fury. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration

Lets collaborate on an article, shall we? You choose the subject, I am comfortable with anything you'll throw at me other than scientific names. A common point of interest will be I guess cars. What do you think? Soham 16:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me, and it's about time I did something other than working on my own. :) A cursory look through my planned articles list suggests that something like March 711, a Formula One car from 1971, would be a good idea. So here's a challenge for you; go and search for some sources, and show me what you think are reliable ones for this task. We need information on its racing history, its specifications (where possible; it'll almost certainly have a Cosworth DFV engine), the teams who used it, etc. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
So an F1 car from the 1970s it is! Hey if we can add some flesh to the article then a DYK will also be on the cards! I'll try to gather up as many sources I can. Soham 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Found two sources which seem close to a WP:RS, Gurneyflap and History of F1. How are they? Soham 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Good start here. Gurney Flap is not the most reliable source in the world, but it'll do as a source for a few of the technical specifications, particularly those backed up by the other sources; I wouldn't call it an unreliable source, given what I can see, simply one that wouldn't be acceptable in an FA or GA (which we're not likely to be aiming for, at least at first). It has an interesting bit about the car changing its braking format, which I'd love to see backed up elsewhere. Grand Prix History seems perfectly fine, although what appears on the face of it to be a great source for this car is actually a lot weaker than I'd expected, having read through it - although it does give a little background. What it is a good source for is part of the 1971 Italian Grand Prix. Stats F1 looks good to me; I will check its numbers against those in the '71 and '72 F1 season articles later. F1 Technical is fine as a source to some degree, although again, probably not GA/FA material; however, it gives precious little on the car. Retro Formula One seems OK, but it's a bit empty and is rather superfluous.
  • So, we have a good amount of statistics available, and we have a large amount of the technical specifications available. This is good. We also have multiple sources for the car's "tea tray" front wing, which could be the DYK hook you mentioned. This has even more stats available on non-championship races, which can be used to fluff the article a bit further. This rather garish website is not a massively reliable source on its own, but if the text can be verified against the book, may be of use. This is definitely a reliable source, and can be used in a section about the more recent history of the cars. This gives a little more information, and another specifications ref, although it's incomplete in comparison to the others. There are also a few things under a search for "March 711 Goodwood" and "March 711 historic racing" that can give an angle on the 711's more recent racing history in historic racing events. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay then, which times will you work on it, so as to avoid (edit conflict) messages. Soham 07:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll let you start it, and then I'll look into it this evening, probably after you've gone offline as it'll be night time for you :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Soham 08:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just started the infobox with a picture and two refs. Soham 12:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • A very good start, although the conversion tables should go into millimetres, not centimetres :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I used the default provided in the template I'll change them. Hey Luke, I recently watched the film Shaun of the Dead and kinda liked it, have you watched it? Soham 17:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the template is a bit behind-the-times - although nowhere near as bad as Infobox racing driver is. As to Shaun of the Dead, I don't watch that many films, and haven't seen it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Then watch it if you can I insist, you'll like it. Avoid it if Zom-coms are not your genre. Soham 18:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I did'nt notice that you changed it, I just read that they were wrong so I immediately changed them to mm thinking cm was the wrong that you asked me correct. Sorry, mistake on my part. Soham 11:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a problem, and no harm done :) By the way, your signature still points to your old account; I suggest you fix that, or you may get "you forgot to sign this" messages from a bot. (Been there, done that, with my alternate account) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done Soham 12:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Luke, I don't have a stable net connection so I won't be able to work on that. I will after I get back. Soham 17:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey luke, I am back again so lets start. Which area should I research about now, History maybe? Soham (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll list them here but 1st let me take care of a vandal on Dhoom 3. Soham (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Luke I have opportunity of visiting a library sometime around, I want to search for this car do you know some books or old archives of car magazines I can search from? Soham (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

found some -

  • If you can get your hands on a copy of any of those in the library, they may be quite helpful. Any book about 1970s F1 should have at least some mention of it :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll try my best. Soham (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey mate, I searched the library but did not find it. To be true I got a little indulged in detective books . I will try another one, lets see if I find it there. Can we use Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source? Soham (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Found this but has no mention of March 711. There is March 751 though, we can use it for succession. Soham (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The March 751 was the 1975 car; the successor to the 711 was the 721, and the experimental 721G/721X cars. :) And we can definitely use Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source, but I wouldn't expect it to have what we're after! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me see what I can find. Soham♥talk 05:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes found this which lists the diff types of models originally made by the maker and their no. of total races, race starts, present location, first race. Looks like a good source.
How's this one? Soham♥talk 05:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
2 more, 1, 2, 3, 4. What do you make of these? Soham♥talk 05:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The chassis numbers bit at oldracingcars.com is very useful, and will also give us a bit for a "Where are they now?" type section. The March Archives source is OK for reffing how the 721 cars were less successful, but there's little else there for this article. I'm not sure the AllF1 info source gives us anything new (other than maybe a reference for the STP sponsorship). The Conceptcarz.com source is one we'll have to avoid, as per WP:CIRCULAR - it clearly states that they've referenced a Wikipedia article; which is a shame, because there's a huge amount of info there and it would be very useful otherwise. That Monaco GP results thing at GrandPrix.com is good, but doesn't add anything extra. Finally, the Historic Sports Car Club ref is useful for telling us something else about the car's more recent history. You've done a good job here :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Luke, I have absolutely no experience writing history of racing cars, that too of 1970 so I'd ask you to take the lead and I'll follow. Soham 15:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll be right behind ya, Ja? Soham 07:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, my plan hasn't come off as of yet, and I'll be going away for a few days, so it'll be the new year (probably) before I actually get around to it - doh. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Same with me, in the meanwhile I have changed the infobox picture, the previous one was a bit clustered with lots of other things, I removed them to put the focus solely on the carrr... I also have a GA review lined up so 2014 for me as well. Soham 11:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Newman's mother

There is a discussion at Talk:Paul Newman#Contentious edit regarding Newman's mother which you may be interested in contributing to.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikibreak

  • OK, I've had enough now. Although it's fairly obvious what the flashpoint was, the fun has long since gone out of Wikipedia for me, apart from in content creation. I'm sick of having to fight vandals all over the place, and of having to dismantle abusive sockfarms. I'm sick of the two-faced attention seekers that seem to permeate this place, and how SPAs can end up being treated better than established editors in some circumstances. So, it's time for a break of an indeterminate length; hopefully that'll recharge my batteries. Soham, if you're reading this, feel free to carry on the March 711 article without me. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 13:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Devastated mate, more so because I share the same feeling. Looks like the {{Can't retire}} template was better than this. Soham 14:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Breaks are good, I took a decent one last year. I hope you recharge, we need good editors willing to do the dirty work. I'm really here because an issue to mention but it's not that important in the light of your problems. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope nothing I've said has contributed to your decision. If so, it was never personal. You will be missed and I hope you can come back soon, feeling fully refreshed. Best wishes from a lazy editor! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope you come back, Luke. Breaks are good (I am taking one until June) but infinite ones would be bad. Epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support in the case pictured, will miss you, too, and closed my shop, more or less, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately true, some of the conflict and ANI outcomes in the past year or so have been shocking. Anyway, you were not only a good vandalism patroller but also an awesome content creator in a specialized field. Hope you do decide to return after detoxing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporary return

Well, it looks like I'm being dragged back due to various attacks on articles I have written, often by people lacking in any knowledge of the subject area. Interesting to note that soon after I announced my Wikibreak, several edits of mine were reverted on various articles... strange, that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Yay! You're back. Soham 13:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

hello Lukeno94

On the Tom And Jerry page another user put the vulgar quote where lesbians eat eachother out and paul fucks his mum it had been taken off, and I didn't put it back on the page intentionally, all I wanted to do was put the infobox back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman103 (talk • contribs)

  • Don't worry about it Wikiman103, I wasn't accusing you of any foul play, it was Carniolus who levied the vandalism claims, which I reflected back at them. It's all rectified now, and we should all be more careful in future! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • ok thanks :) I was just letting you know though :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman103 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

lol

"Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" is the exact definition of what Prisonermonkeys is doing, not me. Get over yourself. Eightball (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • If you look at the discussion, you'll see that I was one of the people who was strongly objecting to Prisonermonkeys' stance on the Sirotkin issue, but I didn't remove two whole paragraphs for no reason, and then edit war to keep them out. That was just pointless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Incident report

Lukeno94, why did you mention me in the incident report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:2014_Formula_One_season? The content I reverted was the removal of a sentence from the sporting regulations section by Prisonermonkeys as well as, accidentally, the addition of the driver numbers to the currently hidden Drivers' Standings table by Prisonermonkeys. This has nothing to do with the dispute over the order of the entry list. Tvx1 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Simply to give a fuller picture of the reverting. I named everyone involved in it, as far as I'm aware. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
But I was not involved in it. Tvx1 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You were involved in the reverting, based on [3]. That's the only reason you were mentioned. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As I already explained above, I reverted an unrelated matter in the Sporting Regulations section. That had nothing to do with the dispute over the ordering of the table which was reported to the administrators. The only thing they had in common was Prisonermonkeys. Tvx1 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It was relevant because I was bringing up the edit-warring, which is the only thing that is actually relevant at ANI; the rest was a content dispute, and should've gone to DRN. I never stated that you were edit warring, only that you had been involved to some degree in the revert cycle. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Safari Motorsport

Hi Luke, could you look this over? It's been tagged for notability for nearly six years. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • In terms of English sources, I can turn up absolutely nothing. They run cars in the Turkish Rally Championship, but that's a very small national championship, so I wouldn't give that much heed; it could be that the drivers of that series generate some notability (if they're regular ones), but I'm not so sure about teams. From the English translation of their page, it appears that it is run by Hakan Dinç, who is also the team's driver; so I'd say we should redirect it to that page, if Dinç is notable. He's driven a top class WRC car in the Turkish Rally Championship, so that's a small rung on the ladder. I can find evidence of him winning a rally in that car, from [4]; that appears to be a round of the Argentine Rally Championship. There's also [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Now, I may not speak Turkish, and Google Translate is atrocious at this particular translation, but I would venture that Dinç is notable. My conclusion? Redirect Safari Motorsport to Dinç, and then Dinç needs rewriting due to it currently being a copyvio of his biography from Safari Motorsport's website. Sorry for the long rambling answer :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've found out that Dinc ran three WRC events, one of them in a top-class car (and in one of the others, he won the Group N4 category), so I would definitely now say he is notable, and have rewritten his article as a result. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VanishedUser_sdu8asdasd/Archive_13&oldid=1089999294"