User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Motorsport red links

No, what is unhelpful is adding links to articles that do not exist, especially over 100 links in one page. If you want articles for every driver that took part in Le Mans ever (and taking part in Le Mans does not mean you're inherently notable), you better be the one that's ready to make them. And if you do, please create the article first, then you add the links to the relevant pages. Now go read WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTABILITY. Pc13 (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong on racing drivers in the 24 Hours of Le Mans not all being notable, wrong on me having to write all the articles (although I do intend to do most of the automobiles eventually), wrong on it being a link farm, and wrong on you not being unhelpful. Red links are perfectly valid things, and the total number is irrelevant. In your blind revert, you remove countless valid disambiguators, some of which are vital to the article's accuracy. If you must remove the red links, then do so; but do not blanket revert again, as that is pathetically lazy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Drivers in Le Mans are not inherently notable. Anyone who meets the minimum requirements can participate, there is no criteria establishing merit that can be used to determine notability. In fact there is barely even a requirement to qualify on pace, even with the introduction of minimum driver times in recent years, these requirements have been waived easiky by the ACO. I have not approved of your linking of every driver on every Le Mans, or even WEC/ELMS article, but have not been bothered enough to do anything about it. Certainly the fact that the driver classification system exists in the modern race points out the fact that bronze drivers have not met the requirements for notability for a sportsperson, while silver drivers are questionable. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Drivers at Le Mans are inherently notable, per the usual rules for sports people and taking part in events at national level (see WP:NMOTORSPORT). See Brandon Spoon or Boobie Miles for football players who are notable (post several challenges), despite their only real claim to fame as having been how few matches they took part in. Drivers might not be notable before competing at Le Mans, but per WP rules, taking part in Le Mans conveys WP:Notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would consider Le Mans to be a fully professional race. They have an entire category called "Amateur" so I don't believe that it quite fits the definition. I honestly don't even know what the prize money is for Le Mans, but I doubt it fits the criteria listed in the first bullet point. Your point that two football players were found notable, only after several challenges, points to my claim that notability for amateurs participating at Le Mans without any other success is questionable, as in it should be taken on a case by case basis, not that all who participate are inherently notable. I'd also point out that one of your examples, is a professional athlete and not an amateur, and the other is notable for an influence outside of sports. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's not whether the 24 Hours of Le Mans is a "fully professional" race; I could easily levy the statement that Formula One isn't, due to pay drivers, and the fact you had amateur drivers in the 1970s; but if you tried to propose that this didn't convey notability, then you'd start a Wiki-riot. It's only recently that the 107% rule returned in Formula One, so before that, you could be horrendously slow and still race (Yuji Ide). In motorsport notability terms (ie, per WP:NMOTORSPORT), it is the prize money that defines how professional an event is, not whether all competitors are paid by their teams; by this measure, the 24 Hours of Le Mans is unequivocally a professional event. The simple fact of the matter is that in the 1970s, as now, the event received more press coverage than every event of the World Sportscar Championship put together. Comparing today's system to that in the 1970s isn't necessarily helpful anyway. And the cars used in the races are most definitely notable. The red links are useful, but their removal wasn't what really annoyed me; I'd inserted several disambiguators and corrected a few things, only to have them blanket reverted under inappropriate and inaccurate summaries. If I had the time, and the motivation, I'd write an article on every sportscar used in the 24 Hours of Le Mans; these days, I do kinda wonder if I'm the only one writing those articles (apart from new cars made by big manufacturers). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Formula One requires a Super License, and has for several decades had minimum requirements necessary to even compete. The fact that the 107% rule did not exist for a decade or so does not negate the fact that talent is required to participate in a Formula One World Championship. Yuji Ide was slow, but he had a professional racing career beforehand, meeting notability before even participating in Formula One. There is a huge divide between "pay drivers" and "amateurs". One has talent from a career and wins a seat via money, the other has just money and a hope of talent. Keep in mind also that Le Mans, although part of several championships over the years, is still treated as an individual event and does not require anyone to be part of a professional racing series.

Whoever decided that prize money determines how professional a series is, just completely missed the mark. What the hell is a trivial amount of prize money? It's such a vague barometer, and every single series is completely different in how, if even at all, they award prize money, and even that can vary from year to year. I get their point though, are the drivers earning a living off of racing, or are they doing it as a hobby, that is the divide I believe this is trying to make. They are trying to seperate a professional from an amateur or gentlemen racer. Simply participating in a world famous event such as Le Mans does not make one professional, and not being professional makes your notability questionable. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• As to the licensing, you need a decent license to compete in the 24 Hours of Le Mans; I don't know what it is, but it won't be a standard trackday license or road license. As to what the people behind the notability guidelines were thinking, I don't know, and it's irrelevant anyway; your interpretation of the guidelines is a novel one, and doesn't really sit with the notability guideline; "professional" racing drivers may not actually be that bothered about the money, whilst "gentleman"/"amateur" drivers may want to earn as much prize money as possible, in order to boost their personal finances, in place of any payment from a team. The 24 Hours of Le Mans brings in far more money in prize money and advertising terms than many "professional" championships do. In the 1970s, it was the sportscar equivalent of the Monte Carlo Rally; part of a bigger championship, but it was more important than the championship itself. In short, I'm not the one who came up with these guidelines, but my interpretation is not going to be in violation of it, and nor is yours really, regardless of what we think personally. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ACO Sporting Regulations, 2014

Winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans earns you, as a singular entry and team, 40,000 Euros. That is not per driver, that is to the team. Minimum 7,000 Euros for finishing. No prize money for just competing. If you're going to point out the fact that the very first possibility for notability in motorsport is their participation in a series, in which the professional nature is determined on whether or not the prize money is enough to cover the costs of the sport, then how is it novel to point out that professional race car drivers are employed to race, while amateur race car drivers are participating as a hobby. Saying that amateur drivers are equally as notable as full professionals simply because they both participate in the same large singular event is silly. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You need a B Grade FIA license to take part in Le Mans. All you need to qualify for one is taking part in 10 national races within the two years prior to application. Which means you can finish dead last in every race in the Clio Cup UK for one season, and they'll give you one. After that, you have to complete 10 laps during the official test. There are no minimum lap time requirements. So I really would like to know, for example, how the drivers in #54 AF Corse Ferrari in the 2013 race are in any way notable, seeing as they are gentleman drivers who have never achieved any notable score. Taking part in Le Mans in itself makes you as notable as taking part in the New York Marathon. Pc13 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• @The359; nothing silly about it. The only difference is that amateurs earn most of their money elsewhere; if you're racing on the same tarmac for the same event, then it doesn't matter whether you're a pay driver/amateur, driving for free, or being paid for the privilege. On occasion, being an amateur could feasibly make you more notable; in the event of a successful event, they may well get more press coverage - and that's not particularly fanciful. A large amount of drivers competing in the 24 Hours of Le Mans in the 1970s would probably have competed in at least a handful of World Sportscar Championship events, or some of the bigger American events.
• @Pc13: The #54 team isn't the best example if you're trying to prove me wrong. Yannick Mallégol appears to meet GNG for external reasons for starters; he also competed in all five ELMS events in 2013, and 2 FIA WEC results, which would be enough for notability regardless of what you think about the 24 Hours of Le Mans (remember, "success" is not a factor in the NMOTORSPORT guideline; he scored points in ELMS and the WEC anyway). Jean-Marc Bachelier probably doesn't meet GNG, although [1] is hardly routine or trivial, but he has the same 2013 racing history as Mallegol. Howard Blank almost certainly fails GNG, but passes NMOTORSPORT for the same reasons as the other two. And that's without trying to hash out whether the Blancpain Endurance Series meets the guidelines or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But the criteria is those who race in a professional series, which is under the belief that those who race in professional series have had some sort of achievement or talent in sport and have thus been able to establish notability through their performance in that sport. Someone who buys his way into that position, to me, does not deserve the same notability just because they both participated in the same event. Obviously motorsport is unique in this, mixing amateurs and professionals, this is not something that would occur in stick and ball sports. And for that matter the entire Amateur category of the FIA WEC is designed for these sort of people, it's not a place of achievement but for whoever wants to shell out the money. Boiled down, you gain notability on Wikipedia simply because you spent enough money to participate. Yes, an amateur having success is a good story, see the actors turned race car drivers like Paul Newman or Patrick Dempsey. But then take for instance Kevin Weeda, the amateur for Kodewa-Lotus, since FIA/ACO rules require someone of silver or lower in an LMP2 car. Ran SCCA Formula Atlantic in 1989, withdrew from racing, got rich, bought into Ferrari Corse Clienti to drive Ferrari F1 cars in historics in the mid-2000s, ran a few Radical Masters to get back into competitive racing in 2011, and then suddenly driving an LMP2 in 2012 as the team's designated amateur. Simply saying "Well the FIA WEC is a major series so he's notable" seems to ignore the fact that that is solely the thing that makes him notable.

And to bring the Blancpain series up, they too have a division between professional and amateur, with a distinct category for amateur drivers, even called the Gentlemen's Trophy. The point is that the distinction of notability as addressed by the guideline is toward "professionalism". It simplifies it by simply saying a professional series, but the emphasis is there that professional drivers on a national level automatically have notability.

This is a major concern to me so I am expanding this discussion to WP:MOTOR. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lavaggi LS1

-- John Reaves 00:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban enacted

Hey, Lukeno94, I've closed the ANI thread, and per the consensus developed there, you and Jaggee are now subject to a mutual interaction ban for three months. As you know, interaction bans disallow one from commenting to or about each other, participating in discussions in which the other is involved, editing each other's user or user talk pages, and reverting each other's edits to mainspace. As the interaction ban is a two-way street, I don't really feel that it's necessary to assign blame to one or the other of you; this is a peacekeeping measure, so please keep the peace. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad that's over with. This month here has been very, very hectic for me generally, and it has done my mental health no favours whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Transfer

Can you give me a link to the October consensus? Thanks! Tkotw12 User Talk 9:33, 23 January 2014 (CEST)

• It's on the talk page, where you failed to get the change you wanted. And it has been the consensus since, given that anyone changing that gets reverted (and not just by me). Multiple reliable sources put the transfer at £85m, after all; that's one reason that the page looks as it does. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you refer to this, then you should know that there was no agreement at all regarding Gareth Bale being the world record transfer! It was just agreed that both sums (91 are 100) are unofficial and therefore no foundation for facts. Look it up: It was discussed here as well and it was decided that it should be clearly marked with text explaining the dubious situation! So please stop making a fact out of a rumour! Because multiple other reliable sources put the transfer at €91m... -- Tkotw12 User Talk 9:45, 23 January 2014 (CEST)
  • Edit: You can discuss here. Thanks. -- Tkotw12 User Talk 9:59, 23 January 2014 (CEST)

Hi

Hi Lukeno99,

Don't you think this category should also be deleted? Jaqeli (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, they probably should. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you please nominate its deletion? Jaqeli (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done, in case you hadn't noticed. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Jaqeli (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not a problem. How come you didn't nominate it yourself? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clavdia chauchat

Hello Luke, the Talk:Australia national football team link you provided here does not mention a thing about Clavdia chauchat.. do you have the correct link? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Forgot the disambiguator, my bad, thanks! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Referring people to DR

Just a word to the wise, in case you don't already know. Referring folks to DRN, 3O, or MEDCOM when there has been no talk page discussion, as you did here, is merely going to cause their cases to be declined as each of those venues has a strictly-enforced rule that there has to be substantial talk page discussion (preferably at the article talk page, though most DR volunteers will be satisfied with discussion on user talk pages as well) before a case will be accepted. That requirement is also recognized in the dispute resolution policy. RFC also has such a rule, though it's more of a suggestion there than a prerequisite. I've developed a suggestion page to which I refer editors when I decline cases for that reason. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it was a new-ish editor, so that was the best I could offer to my knowledge. I personally don't trust DRN, based on the cases I've been involved with there, but I try not to let my prejudices affect me too much (and that worked, for a change) - it had also looked like one user had at least attempted to discuss things, so :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good enough. As one of the pioneers at DRN, I'm a bit bemused by your statement that you don't trust DRN. Trust in what sense? In its efficacy? In its neutrality? It the way it fits in with Wikiprinciples? How? I'm not throwing down a gauntlet or other challenge here, but I would appreciate knowing why you feel that way in case there's something that we should improve or correct. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Because I've never had it resolve a case without one of the participants being blocked for their activities in said case, or with the case just going stale and nothing happening. This is simply my experience, it may or may not be a general reflection; I'm not generally active there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fair and I appreciate your input. The fact of the matter, both in the real world and here at Wikipedia, is that mediation (and all forms of DR at Wikipedia are variations on mediation, except for RFC) only resolves a small part of the cases that go through it. Mediation depends, ultimately, on getting people to come to agreement and a lot of folks — perhaps most folks — are only interested in prevailing. In the real world, where I'm a lawyer and have been involved in quite a bit of mediation, mediation is actually more effective because (a) people can be forced into it by a court, rather than just doing it if they want to, and (b) there are a number of incentives to settle, the largest one being that if there's no settlement then there's going to be a decision made eventually and someone will win and someone will lose. Here DR is always voluntary and there's no way to get a judgment. In light of the purpose of Wikipedia, that's a good thing: The RW system encourages settlements, that is compromises, whereas what we want here is for Wiki-truth to prevail through consensus. And "no consensus" is, rightly, an acceptable answer here. Thanks again for your input. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

BMW E38

If want to consider that edit-warring, when other 7-Series articles do just well with such similar information in the infobox, that is quite questionable and selective on your part. You have not made such attempts on the other BMW pages, so why should your novice edits here maintain an inconsistency with other BMW model/platform articles?

BMW has pointed out Herr Boyer's and 1991's design connections to the E38 in various forms, regarding E38 design patents filed April 27, 1993 crediting Boyke Boyer, as well as the crediting of Boyke Boyer on third-party BMW sites and sources for his design work. Christopher Bangle already alluded to the E38 being in its "final wrap-up" in October 1992 upon his arrival at BMW Design. What Bangle saw in 1992, was likely from a 1-year plus effort to take a 1:1 concept clay design, into being production identical prototypes in final detail.

BMW referred to their E38 development status in June 1991 and explained their design process. That is where I retrieved the February 17, 1994 date of E38 pilot production, which you of course removed for poorly justified reasons. I already provided such sources years ago, but I.P. address vandals have as usual removed them without my knowledge and were left unchallenged and not reprimanded on such abuses.

I will retrieve them again, despite my prior citations being removed. Everything on this page is not even fully sourced, yet only this stands out to you as removable. Mind what you edit as unnecessary or fallacious, as you have not contributed on this topic until very recently. Too many naive individuals (and bloggers) rely on Wikipedia information for copy-pasting and do not need inconsistencies confusing them, due to vague/missing information.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm aware that other stuff on the page is a mess, but that's no excuse for attempting to edit war unsourced information into the article. What you seem to ignore is that my removal of that bit formed part of a large set of cleanup edits. Don't forget that I'm not the only one who has voiced an opposition; User:Mr.choppers has voiced exactly the same issue that I did. It belongs in prose, not in the infobox, and it should go from all of the other BMW articles that you are on about. And fuck off with the "novice edits" claim, that shows a tremendously arrogant approach from someone attempting to edit-war in unsourced information. Not to mention that I have more than twice the number of edits you do, and about 33-50% more in mainspace as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And you have again proven my point with your own arrogance and obscene language(unfit for this environment). You are not a frequent contributor to nor monitor things related to Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) nor things automotive, so certainly you appeared to be a novice concerning subject(BMW E38 7-Series) information. Sure you may have done well enough to clean up plenty of messes I disinterest myself with handling, however that was not my point that you were "novice" to Wikipedia. I am a busy engineer and work in that industry, so I doubt I have the time to fritter away on Wikipedia and necessarily focus my efforts on things specific to my interests on here.

I will revisit this later with more satisfactory evidence, as certain 1990s archives concerning the "entwicklung" of BMW's E38 7er are now inaccessible. Not only that, the 1991 date seems to be a bit off and may actually point to Boyke Boyer's exterior design work being finished sometime after April 1990 and before January 1991 instead, meaning it was possibly a good thing that you removed it. You better mind your language, as you can definitely be accused of incivility.---Carmaker1 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I will continue to use language as I see fit, see WP:NOTCENSORED. And you have absolutely no idea whether I'm a novice in the area or not; and nor is it relevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayli Barker

Regarding my relist, I realize this action was a bit unconventional, but it's not about counting keeps and deletes. I read through all the comments and came away with the impression that there wasn't any overwhelming weight of argument on one side or the other. If my judgement was poor, and there really is consensus, then a few days from now we'll still have consensus and some other admin can come along and close it more decisively. In the long run, there's no harm in spending a few more days talking about this and getting a few more opinions. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, given that the discussion went stale 4 days ago, a relist was pointless. Secondly, the "weight of argument" is evident from the fact that two delete voters have changed their votes, one way or another. Thirdly, one of the two delete votes has no basis in policy whatsoever (GNG requires coverage to be non-routine, not non-circumstantial). It's not that your action was unconventional that's the issue, it's the fact that it is pointless and doesn't reflect the actual discussion (since you stated you were going to close as "no consensus", which would be an incorrect closure as well). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In my mind, one of the most interesting comments was, I still firmly believe this is WP:TOOSOON, but I can't disagree that the letter of GNG is met here if not the spirit, so I've struck my delete !vote (but without changing to keep). In my opinion, the spirit of all wikipedia policies is much more important than the letter. You interpret The Bushranger's comment as being a keep vote. I interpret it as an argument for deletion. It was largely for that reason that I felt declaring a consensus was the wrong thing to do. My advice here is to be patient. As I said earlier, if indeed the consensus in the community is that this article should be kept, then I expect that will be made more clear over the next few days and life will go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't interpret Bushranger's comment as being a keep vote at all, I interpret the article creator's comment as being potentially a keep vote. Massive difference there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hi Lukeno94. Thanks for pointing out my mistake here. D'oh! I hope I will be a bit more careful with my speedy deletion assessments in future. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the barnstar, and no problem :) It was an amusing little factoid, that was all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat

Hello. I noticed you posted a message on Siddiquis talkpage. It is highly unlikely you'll get much of a response because that account has been blocked for years now. Green Giant (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• If you look carefully, you'll see that the edit summary contains (TW), which means that I placed the PROD with Twinkle, and Twinkle notified the page creator for me. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Aye I noticed, I just thought I'd let you know. :) Green Giant (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Joe Lolley

What copyvio? Have you warned the article creator? GiantSnowman 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• They lifted the entire two sentences that used to make up the early career stuff straight from the Huddersfield press release on him signing. And I left a note on his talk page about it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Solanki

I'm lost now! See the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• "14:13, 28 December 2013‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ . . (54 bytes) (+54)‎ . . (Sitush moved page Jawan Singh Solanki to Jawan Singh (politician): name per source) (thank)" - that's why you appear first on the redirect's history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Still lost. If I moved it, why am I first in the history? Presumably because the history has moved also? I'll have to refresh my memory on page moves - it's the only time I've ever seen the templated note below the redirect link, although I've done plenty of moves in the past.

  Still, it's an added twist to the ongoing battle against caste POV pushers! - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can determine, you moved the page, thus creating a redirect in the process. As a result, you are listed as the creator of that page. The original page creator has then tried twice to revert your move via cut-and-paste methods, leading you to eventually tag the original location under A10. Currently about to start a lecture, so no time to log in :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Awarded for your vigilance and due diligence in dealing with 2601:D:380:B5:69C2:B67E:90F1:13D4 across the entire range of Windows articles. Sincerely, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you :) It was a pretty easy "spam the rollback button", as it was obviously the same sort of edit on each article. I will never understand why people do these things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to revert...

...but you did before me. Excellent sense of humour, matey. Soham 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm in a reasonable mood at the moment, so things like that will come out ^^ Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Spuistraat

Hi, you appear to be on same track. Please see Daft SPI as this is another manifestation of the case at WP:ANI. HCCC14 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• The IP confessed to being AA, so I reported them to AIV. There are not many people I dislike more than those who hide behind an IP and post vile trolling like this. (I have no interest in the dispute outside of countering any more of this abuse) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine but Spuistraat is active as we write and he is not AA but Daft, so can you please assist in reverting his stuff. The SPI will take its course. Thanks. HCCC14 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm unfamiliar with the workings of WP:CRICKET, or this sockmaster, so I'll leave that to people who know how to handle such things (I'm in enough disputes as it is). Also, why did you reinstate the AA IP sock's rantings on John's talk page? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, undo of Daft post done incorrectly. HCCC14 (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not a problem. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• And I'm curious, HCCC14, as to why you're engaging one indefinitely blocked user, and yet demanding that every post by the other one is removed? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you certain the IP is AA as I am not, though it is possible? So I am being polite but also expressing my own views about the ongoing Daft saga, with which this person evidently agrees. Suggest you see the Daft SPI archive. Daft is subject to WP:BAN and therefore WP:BMB applies to anything he inputs. This has dragged on years and highlights the inadequacy of WP when faced by a determined troll. It's a shambles. HCCC14 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see the IP has now been blocked so that settles that. HCCC14 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The IP self-admitted it here, otherwise I would have absolutely no idea about it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, and I see Daft SPI has been concluded with yet another block. I'm logging out now. HCCC14 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wantage Hall

Hi! Not that I particularly care, but I am slightly surprised by your redirect of Wantage Hall to Whiteknights Park. As far as I can see, the hall isn't in the Whiteknights estate, predates the donation of Whiteknights to the university by many years, is a Grade II listed building, and is mentioned in a number of independent reliable sources. I can't see any reason to doubt its notability. That it gets a lot of slightly annoying schoolboy-level edits doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason for doing away with it. May I suggest a reversion to the status quo ante? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I redirected it to the wrong place, that is true (oops, I should know better, as I'm a student at UoR), but it hasn't really gotten any notability that is independent of the university, and I'm not aware of any inherent notability given by a building being Grade II listed either. The main thing here though, is that the only really encyclopedic information would be a very short stub (with the "Wardens of the hall", "Private's Progress" and "Hall alumni" sections being binned), so it doesn't really make sense to have it in its own article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you may be right. However, if you are going to redirect it to the Whiteknights estate, should you not merge the valid referenced content to the destination page? Except, of course, that it would be completely irrelevant there. So perhaps the best solution would be to put it back where it was? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's a Halls of Residence; nothing really needs to be merged, and if I culled the irrelevant information out of it, there'd be very little left anyway. Hence why I've done what I've done. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

What would you think if I nominated you for adminship?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would think you'd gone crazy. There is no way that I am currently a suitable admin candidate, as I am far too volatile, so please, don't nominate me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My talk page

You recently removed a valid and welcome message from my talk page. I'm not sure why you thought it was OK to do so, but it was not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• It was an advert, and included an email address in it. That is why I removed it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It was not an advert. Which part of "valid and welcome" do you not understand? Do not edit my talk page again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• It appears very much to be advertising a particular person, and it does have an email address in it.Given your recent atrocious handling of WP:BLP, I'd have thought that you'd be a modicum less arrogant... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship.2FPiotrus_3.E2.80.8E_edit_warring. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Pititsa

Hi, you managed to find news coverage for Pititsa hill climb‎, which is helpful, now we know the race actually exists. I still think it's not notable enough, so I listed it at Articles for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pititsa hill climb. I thought I should let you know. Markussep ^Talk 16:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Have some pie on me...hugs and kisses! MONGO 16:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting choice of message, but I harbour no hard feelings towards you MONGO, at least you don't seem to have an ulterior motive. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

on Alwar page

Inspight of reference links to the content lot of content has been removed without review.

I feel you should review the reference properly before deleting the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.61.18 (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't need to; you're referencing Wikipedia in one, and the other is no evidence of notability. These places need Wikipedia articles before being added. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

re the ANI

Luke, I didn't intend to appear that I was accusing you of condoning the lack of action there, although I can see why my edit made it look as if I was criticising your comment with my "let's just dispense with...." remark. That was a rhetorical device, not aimed at you. You are quite correct in everything you say. Rgds, Leaky Caldron 11:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

AE report

Please take note of the AE report where there are indirect references to you. --walkee^talkee 13:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment here [2] and the fact that you're trying to be fair. How about we bury the hatchet? Just... please, next time, take a pause and proof read your comments before you accuse someone of doing or being capable of carrying out some pretty vile acts, even if only unintentionally by implication. I've really been subject of this kind of behavior by these people, I know what it's like, and I get really offended that someone could just blithely accuse me of doing such things (and it really smarts if you've been subject to it, for someone to accuse you of doing it). Also, pause and don't take anon IPs words at face value. If you really want to I can write you a private email and explain in detail why that post was full of lies. Diffs are just links. In and of themselves are not proof of anything. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm happy to bury the hatchet, so to speak, because I don't like holding grudges/people holding grudges, but I'm not really interested in the private email. In terms of off-wiki harassment, I'm well aware what that's like, as a photograph of me was used as an attack image at ED, for example (this was later taken down). As I stated, I would usually be the first to remove such a post from an IP, if it didn't seem to be well backed up (and what I read in the diffs corroborated the linked statements). It's probably best that this is just left behind now, although it would be good if FPaS publicly recognized that they may need to be a little more careful in their actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Dead by april

I can see you reverted my edits; You have obviously not read their facebook pages. Christoffer confirmed Alex' departure on facebook. Please read the statement from Alex https://www.facebook.com/alexandersvenningson?fref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMachaku (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Facebook does not count as a reliable source, and you did not provide that source in your change on the Dead by April page. Please wait for the band's official announcement (or an announcement in an actual reliable source) before making the change again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Accusation rel the Portuguese FB friendly

You're right! My bad about the Ami-centric! It also contradicts what else I said. Further, my apology that it read as an attack; 'didn't intend that.

I do have a major problem with the issue of editors, from what you said obviously NOT you, discounting and often trying to delete articles or info based on the info having no connection to USA or being based in a culture that doesn't use English. One of my pet peeves, e.g., which IMO is an embarrassment to WP is when talking about international films, editors refer to the country's film awards as "the American Oscars." Just yesterday I ran across s.o. wanting to delete an article about a current (I think) MP of a country. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't disagree that there is a bias towards English "things", but that is only natural for an English encyclopedia, particularly as most people are simply incapable of making any judgements based on a foreign-language source. I suggest you make sure that your tone is a little more moderate in future, and that you ensure you include reliable sources to back up your position. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Brock/Johnson

The shared army service bit is very well known, mentioned a bunch of places. Basic search brought up:

• here and,
• here

- regards --Falcadore (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not doubting that bit, but it is pretty trivial (especially in the way it was written). The comment was more aimed at the dates for Brock's military service, which I couldn't verify (only that he had completed military service, which, on its own, is not notable without being in the context it was originally written) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: User: Freshacconci

Hi. Are you sure User:Freshacconci is a sockpuppet? Quis separabit? 20:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not that user. User:KoreanLuck was the sockpuppet. I'm not quite sure how you read "Reverted 1 edit by Freshacconci (talk): Made by a sockpuppet, that's why." after "Reverted 1 edit by Lukeno94 (talk): Unexplained revert; the previous edits appear sound." as implying Freshacconi is a sock. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread it. Quis separabit? 20:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Tis OK. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football

Ah, oops. I thought I was reverting the Costa Rican one. Though in many ways the Omani one seems odder, given that there seems to be consensus that it is fully professional at Talk. Nfitz (talk)

• The Costa Rican one is also under discussion, so I strongly suggest you self-revert, and wait until consensus falls one way or another. There's no consensus yet for the Omani one either - two of us have said that there's no evidence yet for it being fully professional, whilst one person thinks it might be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion about Costa Rica being fully professional is here JMHamo (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Stadium capacities

Hi Lukeno, I'm sorry I'm already adding the sources to the capacities. I'm just helping to update the capacities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staafros1 (talk • contribs)

• A lot of the sources you are using do not comply with WP:RS, and at times, you are changing information that is already reliably sourced in articles. If you don't stop this, I'm afraid I will have little choice but to request a block, particularly given the rate at which you are making these changes, User:Staafros1. I appreciate what you are doing, but it's not helpful at the moment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi

All humans are living on the Earth , so what is it copyright of pictures?! where is the copyright of my own uploaded pictures ? --۝ ۝ (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying, but I know what it is related to. The picture of that car was taken straight from a copyrighted website, and you cropped out the identification marks. Now, I don't speak Arabic, but there was no evidence you owned the rights to that photograph, particularly given the ease of finding the uncropped image on the web, and you have a long history of exactly this sort of thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasnt Arabic. u know nothing about the East.--۝ ۝ (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, Hebrew then. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether I know nothing about the East, you still violated copyright laws. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Turbo

It appears my mentioning of turbo charged snowmobiles got edit or deleted? They do have that feature. Was that inappropriate what I did? Just trying to learn. Regards,

Karl Shoemaker (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• First things first, Karl: I strongly suggest you remove that URL from your signature, as you are likely to be blocked as a promotional account if you don't. Secondly; if you're talking about this edit, then you will see that I requested you add a source for your information. Thirdly, I hope you take these two things to heart, and keep editing, because you're not being unconstructive from what I can see :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the ringing endorsement ("BMK, for their faults ... is a net positive"). I may run for admin now!! <g> BMK (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it may not have been the best wording, but I feel it is a valid comment. You have a reputation for being combative with some people, and of not mincing words; to some people, that has made you one of their "hit list", so to speak. Which means that they will immediately overlook anything good that you do. And there are definitely a lot of people who would make worse admins than you, although I wouldn't expect an RfA to pass (too many "haters", so to speak). :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I didn't mean to criticize you at all, since it was a pretty accurate statement, I think. And FTR, I would never run for admin, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't be confirmed. (If you see me standing for admin, you might want to have someone check to see if my account's been compromised, or if I've taken leave of my senses.) BMK (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I wasn't in the best state of mind last night, so I'm not surprised I misinterpreted it a bit :) and I wouldn't expect you to run for admin either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your post(s) on WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Bearian, although I obviously wish those requests were all unnecessary :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

As I feel our exchange has been somewhat unfortunate, I've made a request for benevolent admin assistance [3]. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your responses. As you'll see I've tried to direct the discussion towards what I see as the underlying issues. Fyi, my reference to age on your talk page was only intended to recognize the age-related aspect of the challenges and pitfalls of online communication (for instance, there are always real people behind usernames/ips, and often we're hampered by the fact that we have very little idea who they really are). Also, there is now a section on the article talk page for discussion of the editorial role of the link -- I'd request you to comment there before removing the link again. Thank you, 86.173.146.3 (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Last question

Since going to allow two injustices, you could at least tell Maragm and company that the discussion in article Peter III of Aragon started on January 14 and therefore the previous edition is what I advocate. I'm tired of being accused of not respecting timeout.--EeuHP (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are the one who needs to discuss that with them, I'm afraid, if you still desire this change to happen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that his image his the change. The previous image is Pedro III de Aragón.jpg and they act as if it were the other way around. Anyway, leave. I see you are not willing.--EeuHP (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Hi, Lukeno94,
I know all about WP:DENY but I'd appreciate it if you would not remove or refactor comments left on my talk page. I can handle that myself, thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• In most cases, I wouldn't, but given the abusive commentary by this user, I was just removing everything posted by their sock IPs in one go. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least you sound a bit apologetic! The same thing happened two weeks ago and the deleting editor was pretty defiant about it. With Colton, I tried to counter his negative comments with providing alternatives to ranting. I'd rather he rant to me than post on 20 admin talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, he's been doing both, and that's the problem. I don't appreciate him flat-out lying about what I've said, either. If he was only ranting in one place, I'd be inclined to leave it be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano

I didn't want to keep replying on Giano's talk page lest it be viewed as gravedancing, as that is not my intention. However, Giano was blocked last week for edit warring with arbs, chose to revert war on the other party's talk page, then chose to revert an arb that hid a personal attack on an arbitration page and finally doubled down with more personal attacks. Indef was not out of line, in my view. Expecting him to grovel might be a bit much, but clearly he needs to apply an apology or two. However, you may actually be right. Primarily because I wonder if he is too proud to apologize for his own behaviour after making a federal case out of another editor's unwillingness to back down/apologize? Resolute 00:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not denying that Giano deserved a block; they did. However, escalating all the way to an indef, and to mark it as an ArbCom block, which will severely restrict their chances of ever being unblocked, seems very much to be inappropriate to me. A month-long block was probably justified, but no more. And we've seen it before; you pretty much have to kiss ArbCom's ass to get one of their indefinite blocks removed (when marked as "only ArbCom can deal with this"). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps. I won't deny that I'm not going to be all that broken up about it if Giano never returns, but there is certainly an argument to be made that Arbcom's own failings in this case warrants a little contrition on their own part. From that perspective, I do think an honest apology from Giano and promise to cease edit warring on arbitration pages should be viewed as sufficient cause for an immediate unblock. Resolute 00:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm about to go off to bed now, but I would entirely agree that an honest apology should be enough for an immediate unblock, but the question is though; would it be? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Allen Leech

to be fair, the editor seems to have acted in good faith. poko 22:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.202.167 (talk)

• I never accused anyone of acting in bad faith. However, the Sunday Mirror is a notoriously unreliable source - even interviews cannot be trusted, as they have often fabricated/manipulated part of interviews, and even the whole thing. As a result of that, and the fact that the subject of the article has publicly stated that it was a load of bollocks, it went in the bin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• i didn't mean to imply that you did, so i have struck off part of my statement. :) 74.44.161.102 (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Given how often people like to misrepresent me around here, I've taken to making it absolutely clear what I've said - I didn't think you were saying that I had accused someone of acting in bad faith :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Krutoi dezigner is back

Krutoi dezigner is back, he's edit warring and continuing personal attacks "Deleted edits added by a special boy..."--RAF910 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, they're gone again, and this time for good (until they start socking - if they're smart enough to figure out how to). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/EFAF Atlantic Cup

Hello Luke, when you AfD anything football related, could you please add it to Nominations for deletion and page moves so that it's not overlooked. I have posted your EFAF Atlantic Cup AfD to WT:FOOTY for input. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• It wasn't association football related. It was American Football, which is not under our remit. In fact, I already explained that at least once. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• My sincere apologies. I saw your User name and assumed it was related to Association football. Sorry again. JMHamo (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's understandable, and I found that article whilst searching for The Atlantic Cup (football) sources. I was just a little peeved as you are the second person not to actually look before adding it in to our Wikiproject's list. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Futurliner

I am an ATHS antique truck historical society member, this is updated information regardless of wether it came off a blog. it is from hemmings motor news. I originally wrote that paragraph and someone is changing it to incorrect information. My most recent edit cleaned it up. stop reversing my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbschev (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Can you provide the official, non-blog source then please? Also, your edits really didn't clean it up, they made it worse. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GM Futurliner Page

I am trying to Accurately edit the futurliner page, the line (Two buses are generally beyond restoration and are in storage.{citation needed|date=July 2013}) in the Today category was added by me in 2013 and needs to be omitted as it is no longer true, IE the Restoration of Futurliner#5 as shown in the reference @ www.hemmings.com. Followed by the discovery that the Peter Pan Bus line in Springfield Mass, has 2 busses instead of just one (one restored one not) was already described at the begging of the paragraph. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbschev (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• You have made a complete and utter mess of the entire thing. Making a mess of various tags, sentence structures, and generally everything. I strongly suggest you click "show preview" before you save your edits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi Luke

Just made a start on a GA review and TRM comes in after 15 minutes with this, which is really not conducive to encyclopaedia building, particularly in the middle of a review. I tried to take on board your comments on his talk page, but apparently he hasn't. I would appreciate your comments. Thanks, C679 19:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I was shocked you'd missed this terrible POV. Maybe you were going back to re-review it later. I guess the ego comment has bitten you, if you can't handle the criticism of your own review quality. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Look, let's be blunt here; you've both fucked up by not taking enough care in your GA reviews; TRM by not checking the sources and some of the prose properly, and C679 by missing that fairly obviously non-neutral commentary. You both need to act like adults, and not continue to turn this into a massive dramafest. C679, your posts on TRM's talk page were out of line, and unfortunately TRM, you rose to the bait. There is nothing wrong with TRM's comment in the article you linked there, apart from the fact that "soaked in POV" is a bit more inflammatory than is necessary (however, it is still very, very mild). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Dave Murphy

Yes, it's a shame, but it was coming. Apart from the defending, and the free kicks, I always liked his ability to appear unnoticed in the opposing penalty area. I was surprised how good he looked the first time I saw him this season, genuinely didn't look as if he'd been away. What worries me about young Mitchell becoming the next Murphy is his tendency to pick up injuries.

Didn't you start working on the article at one stage? please feel free to carry on. I'm happier either finding sources for stuff or noticing what's missing than doing any actual writing at the moment, but I'll gladly contribute to what you do with it. If you do decide to improve it, it may be worth consulting Jmorrison230582 on the Hibs section. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Struway2, I did do a fair bit of work a while ago. I'll start a GA push when my health improves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Toyota Agya

Hey there Luke! Thanks for the brief welcome. I have added some references to the page Toyota Agya. The page is not in English but considering this page is about a car that will only be available in Indonesia (at least for the Agya name) I think that should not be a problem just like the existing reference ("PT. Toyota Astra Motor | Mobil Terbaik Keluarga Indonesia | Product | Agya | price-and-specifications". Indonesia: Toyota. Retrieved 2013-10-21.)

Please have a look and let me know if it needs some fixing. Regards Nismo91 (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Nismo91, I'm glad you've reacted in the right way here. Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, and the fact that Filipino and Indonesian Agyas use different engines is definitely worthy of note, so I'm very glad that you've kept both things in the article, and referenced them both. Good job! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Google search

Google search shouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all for research prior to thinking about nominating something for AFD.

There are references other than what is readily available on teh interwebs.

You know, like your local library microfiche, or archival news databases such as InfoTrac, NewsBank, LexisNexis, Westlaw, stuff like that.

Hopefully that's helpful info for you to consider before your next AFD nomination of something notable,

— Cirt (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Noted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! :) — Cirt (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Bullet (2014 film). Cheers! :-) Damage (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2014

• No problem, somehow I didn't end up answering this... *facepalm* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD tags

If another IP kicks up, just ping me on my talk page and I will semiprotect the page. I don't like smiprotecting pages under AfD but since the creator is autoconfirmed it will not affect their ability to improve (or remove the template while logged in again). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Roger that. It's a good job this is an exemption from 3RR... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die

Hi Luke. I'm curious what the thinking was behind the G11 tag. I'm just not seeing any promotional material in there at all, either now or when the article was tagged. What am I missing? 28bytes (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• My head wasn't at its clearest at that point (I was still getting over my illness), but I'll explain why it seemed promotional to me. There's little credible claim of notability in there, and "As the title suggests, you die when you pick up the phone booth. However, the game can be won, and in just two moves." is not particularly encyclopedic, which is what probably triggered me to think "this is overly promotional". I wouldn't G11 it now though. Chalk it down to a "wtf moment", I guess :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I've had plenty of "wtf moments" over the years myself! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think we all do, particularly when feeling unwell. Some more than others, of course :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)