User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Can't remember

Hey Luke, I can't remember, did we have a conversation about Marcus&Gloves and CoccinelRhino? I'm seeing another problem user in the Backyardigans episode article, namely King Cpo Ltd. I'm guessing these are all connected. I'm having trouble picking which sockjobber to suspect. Maelbros? Thx Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Could very well be Maelbros. Don't think we had a conversation about those two users, but that subject area, the type of editing and the fact that the edits are marked as minor are all textbook Maelbros. King Cpo Ltd. could be kicked to the kerb just for the username violation (implying promotional and/or shared use), even without the obvious vandalism being present as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note

If anyone is concerned about me seemingly going over 3RR on any article at the moment; two IP ranges (clearly being operated by the same person) are being used to blanket-revert my edits. Currently, that's IPs from 216.177.129.xxx, and 63.141.204.xxx - not one of these reversions is in good faith. By extension; if the ranges haven't been blocked and you see them coming through and blanket reverting me whilst I'm offline, please help everyone out and just roll them back. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• OK, let's extend that note to say that any mass reverts coming from IPs that ping back to nLayer Communications or AS Areti Internet Ltd are clearly linked to this troll, given that a new IP has appeared that isn't in those ranges. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Barek: to let you know the specifics of what is going on, as far as I know them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What happened here?

Here? Rather than just slapping a 4im on their page, how about explaining why you reverted their edits? They definitely don't seem to constitute vandalism to me, just confusion from the IP. Frood 17:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, their edits do constitute vandalism, as they are rapidly changing categories to ones that are at best non-specific, and at worst blatantly inappropriate. They'd already had two warnings, and have made a huge number of these bad changes. And the category-related things are not the only issue, as pretty much every single edit has been unconstructive at best. You're going to tell me that the edits reverted here, for example, are good, when they obviously conflict with the rest of the article, they were done without sources, and they have no explanation behind them? The 4im warning was more than justified. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Volvo 400-series expert?

Hello Lukeno94,

Please, do share me your knowledge that you have almost instantly reverted my edit concerning the Volvo 440/460.

I am just... curious. But if you insist, please do correct in the article the inaccuracy that NedCar built the car from start. NedCar came into existence in 1991, after the Dutch government and Mitsubishi each bought 1/3 of Volvo's shares. Before that, it was Volvo Car B.V., which was a subsidiary of Volvo Sweden. An odd part of Volvo, since they were fiddling with Renault engines. But definitely a separate entity.

(I happen to be treasurer of the Volvo 480 owner's club in The Netherlands, so if I'm ill informed about this matter, please do correct me and I will tell the former designers of the 400-series that they were wrong)

Cheers, Brinkie (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your own talk page post makes it abundantly clear that your claim was based on original research. The Volvo 440 cannot unilaterally be proclaimed to be a Dutch car, and it's laughable to say that it was on the incredibly flimsy evidence you've presented. The way you added the information in was also a complete mess. I'm no expert (although my mum had a 440 diesel many years ago), but I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies on original research. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello there... breathe in... breathe out... relax. I also used to be member of the Dutch Wikipedia Arbitration Committee many years ago, so I'm very much aware of Wikipedia's policies thank you very much!

The post on the talk page was unrelated, and I didn't include that information because indeed that is original research. I am looking for a publicly written source to back that information up. So you are right if I incorporated that in the article, which I didn't do by the way, hence the remark on the talk page.

However, your statement about original research concerning the edit is plain wrong my young friend, as my edit was based on a document which I believed it was referenced in the article: http://www.vdlnedcar.nl/data/uploads/VDL_Nedcar/history_en.pdf

Unfortunately, a mistake from my side, it was referenced at the article of VDL Nedcar and not here. If you don't mind, I will put this information back into the article.

Volvo was the majority stockholder, but it was a separate entity called Volvo Car B.V. It even became more separated from Volvo from 1991 onwards, when the Dutch state and Mitsubishi stepped in. Please, read the reference.

Also, if you're so concerned about original research, why don't you delete the Volvo_440/460#Evaluation section altogether? I wouldn't mind seeing that part of the article go.

Cheers, Brinkie (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (Wikipedian since 2006)

• The factory is being referred to as NedCar, it's not being said to be being made by NedCar. If you can put in a properly written way of saying what it was originally called, fine. But being built in the Netherlands does not automatically mean that the car is considered to be Dutch (any more than the Peugeot 107 is considered to be Czech - and that was produced by a sub-division that was a mixture of all companies), and whether NedCar became more separate from Volvo in 1991 is also irrelevant. As to the existence of other bad sections; this article is one of a couple hundred articles I'd like to go and cleanup, and the existence of other messes does not justify adding to the pile. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference between a couple of car makers that build a new factory somewhere in order to churn out many varieties of the same car, or a car maker that buys up the shares of a whole car maker including production location and engineering department, together with the plans on a new vehicle, in order to enter a market segment they haven't been before.

Aha, found the reference: http://www.volvotips.com/index.php/440-460-480/history-volvo-440-460-480/

" Phase 2 of the Galaxy Project

"In the 70’s Volvo purchased DAF and took over the factory in Born (The Netherlands). In 1982 the G1-part of the Galaxy Project was sold from Volvo Sweden to Volvo Cars BV (the official name of Volvo in The Netherlands). The G1-project (including the G13, G14, G15 and 9 test prototypes including the G4 above) was sold for SEK 128,5 milion."

So there you are. The design was sold to the separate Dutch entity.

But frankly speaking, if you like to call the 440/460 a Swedish car, you are most welcome to exonerate the Dutch from this very unpopular model, as I won't dare to touch the article ever again. This has already taken up hours of my time and yours too I guess. Have fun with the hundreds of articles you'd like to cleanup, and please don't try to scare away people with knowledge during the process. Just a good advice from my past experience. ;-) --Brinkie (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

toyota agya

Hi! I am wondering why you revert my contribution on toyota agya, since i've cited the link that clearly says the "local" car name in indonesia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muharizvanto (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Partially because it was really poorly formatted, and partially because the source used alternates between Astra Toyota Agya and Toyota Agya. That, and it was made by Astra Toyota, but I'm not seeing the evidence that it is commonly referred to as that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Le Mans nationality changes

Hello Lukeno94,

I wanted to correct some inaccuracies on some Le Mans drivers' nationalities because there are a lot of common and repeated mistakes which needs to be corrected but sadly you reverted all my edits because of the lack of sources. If you have taken the time to check the accuracy of my changes, I'm sure that you would not have reverted these modifications. In consequence, I give you my sources:

• Bernardo de Souza Dantas (Le Mans 1935) is the first Brazilian to take part in the 24h race according to the official Le Mans website. http://www.24h-lemans.com/fr/actualites/les-bresiliens-au-mans_2_1_1707_12007.html

• For Philippe Olczyk (Le Mans 1993 and 1994) The official book of the 1994 24 Hours of Le Mans (Author: Jean-Marc Teissèdre and Christian Moitry) said that he's from Canada and only lives in Belgium, furthermore the canadian flag appears next to his name on his car.

• Raphaël Béthenod de las Casas also known as "Raph"(Le Mans 1935 and 1937) is listed as French in 1935 and Argentine in 1937 and according to the source from the driver's page, he's French and was sometimes listed using his mother's name. (Leif Snellman. "Drivers (R)". The Golden Era of Grand Prix Racing). Therefore his nationality in 1937 was French and not Argentine.

Finally, I will give you another source: http://www.les24heures.fr/ They have a complete database for all drivers and you will see that the nationality for these 3 drivers are in agreement with my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.237.99 (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I actually looked up the race results online prior to reverting, as well as looking at the articles we have (where the driver was wikilinked). Every change you'd made was not in agreement with the sources I saw, bar the one that I didn't alter. Bernardo Sousa Dantas is an interesting one; he was born in France apparently, but was obviously of Brazilian descent (which of course you know). But the online source describes him as being French, and it's also worth noting that nationalities on motorsport articles generally reflect the racing license the person holds, rather than their actual nationality. That may well be the case here. I don't have access to the 1994 book, but online sources note Philippe Olczyk's nationality as Belgian - again, could be a racing license thing. Same probably goes for "Raph". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Courage C60

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Courage C60 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Soccerumors SPI

FYI, I think I dug up another sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccerumors --Non-Dropframe _talk 02:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, that one couldn't be much more obvious. Good spot :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Luke, I have already !voted in the AFDs so probably shouldn't delete them myself but given the outcome of the SPI it might be worth tagging the articles created as WP:CSD#G5. GiantSnowman 09:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, although they were socks, they weren't block evading at that time, to the best of my knowledge, so G5 doesn't really apply. I'd rather just let the AfDs go to completion anyway; it gives us a much more solid basis if (when) these pages are ever recreated. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fittipaldi's helmet

Hi Lukeno94,

I write regarding your accusation against violations on the biography of Emerson Fittipaldi you hold. Since you have devoted a paragraph on the helmet of Fittipaldi just I wanted to be clear about. You wrote accusing "This is unsourced, poorly written, and in excessive detail." Probably my English is poor even re-reading what I had written seems right. "Excessive into details", but I just followed the line description that you started so in my opinion incomplete. If you make detailed descriptions must be done all the way and not starting in detail and then ending up in generic approximate and inexact as you wrote. You have accused of "unsourced" and this shows how little you are informed on the topic. I wanted to attach images to confirm what I have added but then I thought that you would be able alone to remember that what I stated was right, if you know well the story of Emerson Fittipaldi. But in this latter fact I have doubts as your sources are limited to one book,however valid, Ludvigsen and a few other newspaper articles. What I wrote, however, it was based on a series of hundreds of images and several books on the driver, a collection that I started over forty years ago. So all documented. I'm sorry that Wiki has taken for granted all this without first consulting me, because I would have given them all the necessary documents to prove the truth. I hope that despite my poor English you understand the meaning of my words too.

Sincerely

Marco Bertini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Bertini (talk • contribs) 11:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Uh, no, I'm pretty sure you've failed to understand what's going on here. "Unsourced" means that you have not used any references, which are required to make any changes to a Wikipedia article. It has nothing to do with me not knowing anything about the topic. Yes, the existing section lacks any references at the moment, but that doesn't excuse your lack of sourcing. And beyond that, we don't need to go in-depth into every single helmet he had. I've now removed the section because I don't see why it is noteworthy; it seems to fall under WP:TRIVIA, and it was of course completely unreferenced. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As you wish. Better removing the section that leave incomplete and inaccurate. As I've said more than I cite sources images that better than anything else confirms what I asserted. I would have to attach them but it became too complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Bertini (talk • contribs) 13:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lucywhirlpool

You can just ping a checkuser on their talkpage / IRC / email for blatant throwaway disruption accounts like that one, and you'll generally get better results than at AIV. Lucywhirlpool (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed with some socks of AHLM13 (talk · contribs). Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Gah, should've known that was the master; I knew there was someone who didn't like CosmicEmperor, and I'd been involved in their fracas a little bit before... but somehow forgot that it was AHLM13. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

TPS

Hi there LUKE, from Portugal, all well?

Regarding this note you sent to this user (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Powerspyin), a doubt: if a player scores 5 goals in nine games (a random figure) in the previous rounds of the cup (FA or not) but, for some reason (injury, death, tactics, explosive diarrhea) does not appear in the final, he DOES NOT get the honour? Makes no sense to me, what am I missing?

Attentively, happy editing --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• A discussion on WT:FOOTBALL is what you're missing. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Courage C60

The article Courage C60 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Courage C60 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Courage C60

The article Courage C60 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Courage C60 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

International Goals

Since when are international goals not allowed? All the players have them. Are you going to delete all the goals for all the players as well? I just want to know the thinking behind this? Falcao is his countries all time leading goal scorer and each of his goals are important? Shield187 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not every player has such a list, and generally, the viewpoint of most WikiProject Football members has been that tables for players with more than a few goals is not appropriate. Also, there is no way on earth every single one of Falcao's goals is important; goals in friendlies or minor tournaments are completely non-notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I need to explain myself properly

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In our last conversation you said this: "If the studios have made major games indepedently, they should at least get their own page"

So this is what I did and redid these five pages: Sega AM2, Sega Wow, SEGA Hitmaker, Sonic Team, Amusement Vision.

Redundant pages such these Sega Sports R&D and Sega AM3 were made redundant with redirects.

You understand now?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Except, as normal, you were paying so little attention that you created a circular redirect with Sega AM3 (I know, I checked it). And Sega Sports R&D developed Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, which came out after 2004, so that redirect was completely and utterly unconstructive as well. Also, don't try twisting my words to make it seem like I was saying some of the other ones were not-notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• And, beyond that, it wasn't that hard to ref one of the newer Sonic & Mario Olympic Games reliably as being developed by Sega Sports R&D, as indeed I have done. So there goes that argument of yours. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Except it is not sourced that Mario and Sonic was made by Sega Sports R&D or any named group. I can't find anything. Check the credits: http://www.mobygames.com/game/wii/mario-sonic-at-the-olympic-games/credits-- There is no mention of Sega Sports anywhere. The official Nintendo website cites the developer as "Sega": http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/1hm0NfotgRaI9hnHw7n1cGzWf2ygym_l I notice you cite places like IGN and Polygon that take the uncited information in the first place. The credits and the Nintendo website are primary sources and the most reliableTripple-ddd (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• IGN and Polygon are reliable sources, ones I'm inclined to believe on this front because they have no reason to be lying. If you're going to ignore that just because they disagree with what you say, then don't bother continuing this discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• In fact, even your fucking Moby Games source confirms exactly what I've said - "Developed by Racjin Co., Ltd., Sega Sports Japan". So yet again, you are clearly failing to pay any kind of attention. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• IGN and Polygon are not lying. They are inaccurate. So is MobyGames. Pay attention to the information that is extracted strictly from the games.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• You have zero proof of that assertion. All of these reliable sources say this, therefore that is what we go with. Quit wasting my time just because you didn't get your way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• And my final word on this; a FOURTH source that says Sega Sports Japan/Sega Sports R&D developed this game. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• So fansites and info from thin air go over official information extracted directly from a primary source? Explain how your sources are reliable? Primary sources are favourable according to the rules. Calling mods for opinions on this @PresN:; @SergeCross73:. I believe unless there is primary sources for a developer existing, there should not be a page for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripple-ddd (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ford Crown Victoria

Hello. I'm not sure if you're familiar with him or not, but the edits made by the 74.* IP are made by indefinitely blocked long term vandal User:JasonHaddad. And it's not just a suspicion I have but is confirmed by this link that he added as a ref, a hoax newspost made by none other than "Jason Haddad". Thomas.W ^talk 22:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, fair enough. The two accounts may well be linked then, because Altimgamr's standard vandalism was to make up various Shelby vehicles in exactly this way. Granted, Altimgamr's was a slightly different claim for the Crown Vic, but they're still very similar. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Altimgamr and JasonHaddad are one and the same, and their SPIs have been merged, but JasonHaddad is actually the older of the two accounts AFAIK. Knowing that his real name is Jason Haddad might make it easier to provide evidence at SPI. Thomas.W ^talk 22:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No merging of SPIs, but Jason Haddad is named many times in Altimgamr's SPI (Jason Haddad was indeffed in 2009, so he's been doing this for a long time...). Thomas.W ^talk 22:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Then the SPIs probably should be merged at some point. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Will one of you request this at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations? It'll less confusing for admins when they try to figure out what's going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Roger that skipper. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Doesn't look like there is another SPI, so I requested a rename instead. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeep Grand Cherokee reverted

Hi! I am wondering why you reverted my edits on Jeep Grand Cherokee. I just added some pictures of the rear of every generation. Thanks for your help, and sorry for my bad english but i'm italian. Nyc flavio1179 (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• My edit summary was disingenuous, and for that I apologize (it looked like you were mucking around, but you weren't - I can't go back and edit my edit summaries sadly!) However, this article is supposed to be a shorter summary of each generation, and as such, having more than one image for each generation is not needed. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tomas Rosicky

He had 3 apps and 1 goal during 2014/15 FA Cup, should be added in his honours Usman afif (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus at the WikiProject is to only include those who appeared in the final, unless an official source states otherwise (despite the attempts of one user to misrepresent it). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

British Rail Class 22

I strongly suspect that Jack The Gunner 1 (talk · contribs), P22 Comms (talk · contribs), Project6368 (talk · contribs) and Tim70 99 (talk · contribs), which are clearly WP:SPAs, are all the same person. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

can you please provide your opinion on this matter please ? you are like me neither a liverpool or man united fan so your opinion should be neutral thank you :) Adnan (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh, I've had my fill of honours-related discussions for now, I'm afraid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

oh yea I understand man :) Adnan (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Chrysler

Hello, Lukeno. It seems that you have taken it upon yourself to update all instances of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to "Chrysler" under the banner of preventing "recentism." Please understand that Chrysler's official name is FCA US LLC, which is an abbreviation of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. You seem to be conflating the marque, Chrysler, with the manufacturer, FCA US LLC. FCA US LLC does, in fact, manufacture the vehicles belonging to the Chrysler marque. FCA US LLC is in turn owned by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, the international holding company. There is no company officially named Chrysler any longer, it is only the name of the marque.

Please see the relevant article and supporting citations for accurate information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler

"Chrysler Group LLC remained a subsidiary until December 15, 2014, when it was renamed FCA US LLC, to reflect the Fiat-Chrysler merger."

As you can see, this change occurred 6 months ago. I don't believe the concerns regarding "recentism," which generally focus on current events, outweigh the need for accuracy on Wikipedia.

I would appreciate if you corrected your edits to reflect the official name of the manufacturer.

Thank you. IamVoxNihili (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• FCA US LLC may be the official name of the holding firm, yes, but it is not yet the WP:COMMONNAME of Chrysler, which remains, well, Chrysler. Say FCA US LLC (or even just FCA) to a casual person, and they won't know who you're referring to. Say Chrysler, and they will. It's that simple. It's also not inaccurate to say Chrysler own Jeep, and it is consistent with the older articles where the cars were built prior to the FCA merger. Quite frankly, there's no real need to mention the owner of Jeep anyway, and most car articles for non-American companies don't do that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you linked me to a Wikipedia style article about article titles. What we're discussing relates to the body of the articles in question, not the title, and the guidance you reference is therefore inapposite. If you flip to the style article about names within the body itself, you'll find the following: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph...." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#First_mention). It is therefore clearly appropriate that the full, technical name of the manufacturer be provided within the lead paragraph. An appropriate compromise might be "FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler, manufactures X." You say that it is "not inaccurate to say Chrysler own (sic) Jeep" but frankly, I think we can do better than "not inaccurate." Let's be 100% accurate. IamVoxNihili (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Recall numbers

Hi Luke, I'm curious as to what you think suitable recall numbers would be. Note that this is not a net 20. Something to consider: how many of the oppose voters would sign a recall in 36 hours from now, if, by some miracle, my RfA were to pass? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC).

• I don't have a hard and fast number; but 20 just seems ridiculous, when you consider that the average discussion to ban someone on ANI doesn't even get close to that level. I would genuinely say I would rather someone be honest and say that they wouldn't consider recall at all unless it came from someone they particularly respect than to have that kind of arbitrary number (and yes, I am aware that you have that option listed as well, that's not my point.) And, frankly, anyone signing a recall form shortly after a RfA had passed should be ignored as per WP:POINT anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well maybe so. When I have thought about it sensible numbers to consider have been 5, 10 , 15 and 20. 5 has always seemed too small, you can always find 5 awkward people, or people with grudges (in fact a vociferous oppose vote is from someone I had just helped find a technical solution to avoid an edit war). Given the propensity of editors to organise off-site and the significant number of bad actors who have been shown to have drawers full of socks, I don't think 10 or 15 were safe from disruptive recalls. In the event of a legitimate recall the response would be more like an RfC/U than an AN/I.
  • I'm interested in the whole idea of recall, because there seems to me a significant gap in community accountability. This is obviously bad in itself, but it also pushes the accountability and hence power towards ArbCom, who, arguably, don't want it.
  • I also think that recall (if implemented) should be a uniform process. Having a group of admins who are afraid to act for fear of recall would not be a good thing.
  • All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
    

Alpina

Hello,

Sorry for my bad English, I don't speak it very well.

You should be careful when removing sections about Alpina. It seems you do not know this brand. This company is really close to BMW. They have worked with BMW to develop diesel engines and catalysers in the 90s and mostly developped the 3.0 CSL in the 70s. BMW has used an Alpina engine in the first X5. Since the 2000s, Alpina cars are mostly built in BMW factories on BMW production lines (this means BMW does Alpina modifications for Alpina), thus these Alpinas are "factory cars". Since the 2000s too some Alpina cars are sold in North America by BMW : all these Alpinas have a BMW VIN (they have an Alpina VIN elsewhere). There is currently no BMW M7 because there is the Alpina B7 [1].

And all Alpinas keep the BMW warranty and the BMW logos since the creation of the company, on the contrary with the majority of tuning companies the BMW warranty is lost and BMW roundels are removed. And you can buy Alpinas only at BMW dealers. So please check sources before removing more content, Alpina is largely approved by BMW. Not totally official, but not unofficial at all. NemesisIII (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

• I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter how close the companies are, the fact of the matter is that Alpina are not part of BMW - just like Brabus are not part of Mercedes-Benz. It also doesn't matter if some North American BMW dealers opt to sell Alpinas or not, or whatever marketing decisions BMW make, or how the warranty works. The only time Alpina should be featured in the individual BMW car articles is when they actually continued production of a car when BMW axed it, like they did with the Z8. Likewise, Brabus would only be mentioned in Smart articles where they were involved in the official cars. The Alpina cars do justify their own articles though, at least for the most part. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• NemesisIII, you cannot just keep edit-warring to reinstate the text when it is completely and utterly unsourced. Being marketed by some BMW USA dealers does not make it a BMW product. We do not (or should not) include Rufs in Porsche articles, Brabuses in Mercedes-Benz articles, etc unless there is a very good reason to do so. The Alpina B7 needs its own article, not shoehorning into stock BMW car articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You still do not understand. What Alpina did with the Z8 in the US, they did excatly the same wit the E65 and are doing the same with the F01 and the F12 in North America. BMW of North America decided to add these Alpina models to the official line up, this is not some dealers who decided to import Alpinas. All Alpina vehicles have an Alpina VIN excepted those sold in NA: these one keep the BMW VIN and thus are fully BMWs [2]. If you don't know the topic and do not look for references, why do you remove sections about something you don't know ? I would never do this on fr.wp.

Then, you do this. Why ? If it were Wiesmann, Morgan or McLaren which used this engine (they actually used other BMW engines), would you delete this ? You wouldn't. Because these are automobile manufacturers. But Alpina is also an automobile manufacturer. So, once again, this edit is disruptive. And you didn't even checked what I did: I added the specs for the current BMW Alpina models, the current B6 and B7 are more powerful than the 2014 and 2012 ones. So you removed accurrate information. Just stop it. Here are a few sources, there dozens of articles you can find on the Internet: [3], [4].

NemesisIII (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

• NemesisIII, please make sure you're actually paying attention before throwing around claims like that. The edit to the BMW N63 page was not done by me, or any user with a username even close to mine - it's quite staggering that you're blaming me for that. And, for what it's worth, User:Ebyabe was right to revert you, as you failed to cite a single source for your changes.
• Regardless of that fact, your entire point about the VIN is a red herring. Anything with an Alpina VIN means that Alpina are being recognized as an independent manufacturer; anything with a BMW VIN means they're not. Regardless, the presence of a BMW VIN on a car that left the BMW factory as a BMW does not mean that the Alpina information should be located in that very article. Nor does a shipping deal for North American distribution suddenly transform the car into a BMW. Whilst the two companies are closely linked - just like Brabus and Mercedes-Benz - the Alpina cars are genuinely independently notable, and thus should have their own articles. Not sure why you're claiming that Alpina have continued E65 production, because I see 0 evidence of that. And even if they did, the B7 is still a genuinely different enough car to the 7 Series (hence why Alpina can have their own VIN) that it would belong in an Alpina B7 article, not the BMW E65 article. The Alpina Z8s were far less different, and amounted to just being softer versions of the Z8.
• Finally, en.wp and fr.wp are not run in the same way. Each has their different way of doing things. Sourcing is key here, and the WP:BURDEN is on anyone adding information into an article to provide sources for every part of it - even if it is re-adding in information. If you don't like that or won't follow that, then you're welcome to return to fr.wp. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, I am really sorry about the edit on the BMW N63 article. I was reading on my smartphone when I read this, so the screen was rather small and I suppose I just didn't see the name of the user and attributed the edit to you.
• This is not a shipping deal. This is a choice to add the car to the lineup. The North American B6s and B7s are entirely built by BMW like any other BMW, unlike the European B6s and B7s. BMW M cars are the same: the BMW M6 is a BMW built by BMW with BMW M specifications and sold by BMW, the BMW Alpina B6 is made by BMW with Alpina specifications and sold by BMW. The only difference: BMW M GmbH is owned by BMW. Both are official BMWs in North America. There, the 730d, the 640i, the B6, the M6, the B7 or the 760Li have exactly the same status. Actually, I wanted to say that Alpina did not continue the production of the E65, but the B7 was just another official model in the lineup like the Alpina V8 Roadster was. That's why they are fully BMWs (that's why they are the only Alpinas specced cars to have a BMW VIN number) although built with Alpina specs. The Alpina Z8 was not more different from the standard Z8 than the B7 from the 7 Series: both have a different engine, different gearbox, slightly different interior, different wheels and tires and suspension.
• Of course there should be sources in the article. But it is not me who added these sections, I only added some information. Sometimes without source indeed. I could have done this. But "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material." Has the verifiability of these information been challenged? Not until now, so deleting this without adding a "citation needed" a few days/weeks before is quite expeditious. NemesisIII (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

• Apology accepted. The point I think you're missing is that, regardless of where the cars are actually built, Alpina and BMW are separate companies owned by separate people. The fact that the American branch of BMW choose to act differently on occasion does not really change that - it's not uncommon for national dealers to market different things to the main company, but that doesn't make them officially sanctioned. I'm certainly not going to argue that it is a clear-cut case or that things are simple here; we both know that doing so would be stupid. The verifiability of the information is a secondary issue to this, as I am well within my rights to remove long-unsourced content that is barely relevant to the article. The BMW articles are, to be blunt, in a big mess right now (not that they are the only ones, but they are amongst the worst examples of globally-significant car articles I've seen), and they need a lot of tidying up, trimming down and cleaning up - the Alpina removals were only a small part of the cleanup job that I started with. What I will say is this; if we were to get proper articles on the individual Alpina models, as I believe is necessary/desirable (and I presume you'd agree on that front?), then a brief mention (a couple of sentences or so) of the Alpina cars in each article is probably justifiable - the same would go for the other noteworthy tuner cars perhaps, like the Hartge H50. The level of detail that some of these went into, however, isn't, in my opinion, appropriate for the main BMW model articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, rebadged cars or officially tuned cars do not get there own articles (something WP:CARS has upheld for some years). They are normally dealt with in the one page. For example, Nissan Terrano II also deals with the Ford Maverick rebadged version. Mercedes-Benz articles deal with the AMG tuned versions, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• For most tuned cars, I'd agree with that. But a lot of the Alpina model ranges are noteworthy on their own, just like Rufs - which also tend to get their own articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think we both agree with this: a lot of the Alpina models (to name a few, the B3, D3, B5, B10...) are noteworthy on their own and could get an article. Then only a brief mention of the Alpina cars in each BMW article is enough.
• I think we have one difference between our points of view. Are the E65 and F01 BMW Alpina B7 and F12 BMW Alpina B6 Gran Coupé (official American names) sold in North America officially tuned cars ? I think "yes", you think "no". Thus, as said OSX, from my point of view, these cars should be treated like any official version and have a section in the BMW article. For you, as you think "no", these cars are not official and thus should have a separate article. Still, the Alpina B7 Biturbo and the Alpina B6 Biturbo Gran Coupé (official names in Europe) are noteworthy on their own and could have their own article too (while the North American BMW Alpina B7 and BMW Alpina B6 Gran Coupé could have sections in the BMW articles).
• I suggest to do both. We can create an article about these E65 and F01 B7 and F12 B6. However, as these cars are "official" in the US and Canada, a sufficiently detailed section (about 10 lines or so and the engine data in a table) should be kept in the BMW E65, F01 and F12 articles, with a link to the detailed article. The section should be sufficiently detailed because even if there are many BMW tuners (such as Hartge or AC Schnitzer), none of their models are as much "official" as the Alpinas.
• Of course you are right to tidy the articles about BMW cars as it was needed, I can only thank you for this. But maybe you trim down too much ! NemesisIII (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

• It's always possible that I may well be wrong, and I thank you for being such a pleasant person to deal with (if I've been too snappy at any points, I must apologize; I'm very busy in real life at the moment, and a little stressed - getting ready to move will do that to you!) When things have calmed down a little bit for me, I fully intend to start some drafts on these Alpina cars, and probably on things like the Hartge B50 as well (which is fairly noteworthy for having the BMW M5 engines of the time crammed into a 3 Series). At this point, I'm willing to concede the "officialness" point on those particular articles if you're willing to redo the sections from scratch, with more neutral language and actual references. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your decision. I think it is the best solution to work like this. I also accept your apologies and must present my apologies if I have been too snappy too. It happens I am also very busy in real life at the moment, so I think I will write these sections in the following days or weeks. Of course I will try to do my best to add references, use neutral language and avoid language mistakes :) (remember that English is not my native language). NemesisIII (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for resolving the dispute?

Hello Lukeno94. You were reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lukeno94 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: ). Do you want to respond there and propose some kind of a negotiation to get this settled? The angry tone of some of the responses suggests to me that some people aren't using their best judgment. From your side, I see sharp language in edit summaries and a large number of edits to various car articles, proclaiming you're applying the consensus from WT:CARS. In a quick look I can't figure out what that consensus is. (At a minimum, there should be a talk post from you stating what you think the consensus is). A slower approach to this matter could pay dividends, and you should consider stepping up to propose how to do it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• The consensus at WT:CARS relates to the structure of how we present the manufacturers in both the lead and the infobox. That is the explanation to counteract the bogus claims of OWNership, and the consensus reaffirmed that found in previous discussions as well (my edit summaries have made it clear exactly why I made those particular changes.) I wasn't saying that every part of the edit was necessarily based on the consensus there, but the fact is that I was bringing the article inline with how automobile-related articles are usually presented. I get annoyed when people just blanket revert experienced editors without looking at exactly why they made the changes, particularly when there is a demand for "consensus" - bringing articles into standard procedure IS going with a global consensus. The Austin 30 hp article wasn't that bad, but some of the other ones were a complete and utter shambles, and yet I got blanket reverted on those as well - again, by the same editor who really was trying to OWN articles they'd split out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• I should note that I'm perfectly happy to try and work with the other editor involved, but there is no way on earth that I can work with Andy, due to his blatantly obvious grudge that he's held for a long time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Car intros

Hi Lukeno, good job standardising the intro of car articles but can you go easy on deleting the specific dates referenced? You should ensure they are in the rest of the body somewhere, instead of just deleting this factual info. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the more specific dates unreferenced in almost every case? :) If there are any that are referenced, then please point them out and I'll happily go and fix it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not sure why you opted to revert me on one of the articles that already does have that very information in the main body of the text. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Seriously, stop this pointless reverting please CtrlXctrlV, since it's clear that you're not checking the articles to see if the information is there or not, and it would be much quicker to just add it in yourself rather than reverting. That, and I'm going through and checking myself... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Relax, I've only reverted the ones where you didn't accidentally look. Careful with where different bodystyles have different dates. I did correct the initial ones, but then it got too much, too quickly. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Except you didn't look, as I was able to immediately spot the dates in the main article (or only one was missing)... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• And the fact you continued to revert even after it was obvious that I was looking was needlessly antagonistic. I've never had an issue with you before and generally view you to be sensible... but this wasn't sensible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to apologize for overreacting; right now, I'm getting frustrated at people who blanket revert cleanups I make whilst saying they agree with most of it, but only object to one small part (most of the time without even specifying what their objection actually is.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Commer FC

Hi Luke, thought I'd move over here as it's getting congested at the other place. I have a picture of a Commer FC adapted as a TV detector van and badged as Dodge. (It's the one on display at the Science Museum, London.) I might need to edit it a bit, upload it to Commons and then link it here, so you can see what you think. Or if you don't think it's a good idea, before I do, that's OK. I have looked at the Commer lead and it seems fine but I believe boldnames for variants (or in text generally) shouldn't be used. (I read it I think at automobile conventions a short while back). Eagleash (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WPAC is where I read it but it does say re-directs to the article should be bolded, (as in also known as) but I'll leave that up to you. Eagleash (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I definitely think it's a good idea to have a photo of the Dodge version in there - it had notably different front styling to the image that's already in the article. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• OK well it is here. Think it's OK. NB glad to see you (or someone) noted the 1724cc displacement! Eagleash (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wasn't me - all I did was lightly cleanup some of what I pulled out of the main Commer article. :) Nice photo, although shame it's so grainy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It is a bit. That might be because I had to lighten it a tiny bit in Picasa because it was a bit dark otherwise. If not I blame Canon. BTW I've just done some conv. factors & wikilinks on the page and also started the Wikidata item Eagleash (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Is this any better, cropped the person on left out still, but no fill light. Eagleash (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's a bit better, although I'd also say you should crop out the guy on the far right (who you actually seem to have uncropped!), as nothing of value will be lost from that part of the image. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, third and final attempt. If this one's no good to you I officially give up. The low light, wide aperture and slow shutter speed don't make for brilliant images sadly. Eagleash (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Dodge detector van

• I think the low light has indeed screwed you on that one, which is a shame. But put it this way - what matters is how it looks at 300px, not the full image, and personally I think it's good enough in the thumbnail size for the article, particularly if there aren't really any other free images of the Dodge-badged vans. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if there any other free images, I am not entirely sure how to find them. I only ever use my own images uploaded via Commons. I just checked the data for the image and the camera set itself at ISO 800 which is ridiculous for an indoor shot without flash. (Scratch that, 800 is about right — now my brain has unscrambled!) Really must get to grips with overriding the settings. Last image I uploaded, sunny day, ISO 125 sensible speed/aperture. Still as you say I think as thumb or 300px it should be OK on the page. Eagleash (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well, this is the Commons category for the Commer FC and its derivatives, whilst this is the Dodge Spacevan category. Personally, when it is presented in 300px form, I think your image is superior to most of those; only the first one is clearly higher quality, with better lighting, and of a good angle, and that Spacevan looks very run-down (plus, who would ever pick a vehicle in that colour?!?!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've added the image into the article, by the way. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  Good stuff. I might sneak it into the main Commer article and/or TV detector vans in due course, but would like to see if I can get a bit more info maybe. (Any excuse for a visit to the science museum!) :) Eagleash (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Mark Schwarzer

Hi! In reference to your comments on my talk page, the article I read stated that he has completed a move to Leicester City. In reference to your edit comment (specifically "Why does no one actually read what they're citing?), the article I read stated that he has completed a move to Leicester City. Guinness2702 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• That particular comment was more in frustration at people generally, not you, so I apologize for that. However, Guinness2702, you definitely fell into the trap of believing the Daily Mail; as anyone can see by the fact there are still pieces three days later talking about him being about to sign shows how wrong the Daily Fail were. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that Mark schwarzer's move has been confirmed by the premier league [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.209.91 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• However, Leicester City have no official announcement, he has no player profile there, and Chelsea still list him as their player, so I'm afraid that the Premier League appear to have jumped the gun on that front, and we can't list him as a Leicester player yet as a result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• And just as further proof that the website can get it wrong, it still lists Hatem Ben Arfa as a Newcastle player. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We all knew it was happening could have saved yourself a lot of hassle it's now Signed and sealed[6] 82.9.209.91 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, now it is done, yes. However, I can think of numerous times in the past where a deal has been done and it looking like a formality, only for something unforeseen to crop up; Loic Remy being one example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell Luke off here

That's what it says so here I am. Clearly there is much to be discussed. Can we do it here? I do have to say I resent your immediate reverts and I do think you might have discussed your edits first - whether your opinions are seen as right or wrong by the community. Plenty that must be done first away here from WP so don't expect quick responses. Eddaido (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC) :)

• Firstly, the vast majority of my edits were fairly obvious cleanups. We're talking closing unclosed HTML tags, bringing infoboxes in line with how they're done in every up-to-standard article ever, bringing the lead in line with the consensus from a discussion at WT:CARS, sorting out the various Morris Oxford leads (and main infoboxes) so they were actually relevant to that specific model, and adding in a few more categories as more were needed. There's really nothing to discuss there; that's all stuff that should be blatantly obvious, to be honest, just from reading WT:CARS and looking at the well-developed articles. Now, there's a few other things that are worth discussing, and I can give more specific reasons behind my thinking, but when you blanket revert my edits with no real reason given, it's hard to see what your actual objection is - particularly since, as I said before, the vast majority of it was simply bringing things inline with WT:CARS consensus and standard practise. If you've got particular things you want to discuss, by all means say what they are, and I can explain exactly why I did what I did. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Revert my edits with no real reason given". I should have thought it was obvious. Try looking at the edit summaries.

Ah yes, the well developed articles. I'll get round to correcting their inaccuracies, it takes time.

Fairly obvious cleanups—might that use your personal benchmark for obvious? You blanket changed my articles (I think you will find I am responsible for almost all the content including images) apparently working down a list of my work so I want you to pause for a moment and talk with me about what you are trying to do. I will add here that many changes you have made I do happily agree were necessary. I got fed up with that Morris Oxford split and I really did expect the result to be ripped to shreds and left all the duplication for them to fiddle with leaving the words to rest where they fell (you must surely have recognised that). Still you have made some (good faith) mistakes that need to be fixed and you being you we will need to litigate them properly. Eddaido (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I would like to thank you for splitting out the Morris Oxford article (which clearly would've needed doing) and for writing things like the Austin 30 hp - the only issue is that they just didn't quite comply with the standard practises, and you really should've written proper leads (or had no lead at all) in the Oxford splits. Just a tip for future splits :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't thank me. Why do you try to do that? Up on some kind of high ground? How did you get there?!
I had expected the Morris split to produce a roar and a ripping and slicing from copy editors like yourself. One editor did kindly have a go at the lead of one Morris Oxford article. I had fully worked out my supply of friendly feelings for Morris cars and moved on. Eddaido (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• However, I'm rather confused as to why, rather than responding to me here, you appear to have attempted to tag-team against me with Andy (who continues to misrepresent me; I have no interest in discussing with him due to a long history of issues, not that I have no interest in discussion) on the closed AN3 case, Eddaido. Like I said; it is impossible to tell what you're objecting to when you just blanket revert with no proper explanation given, and when you don't actually raise any specific issues either here or elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Attempted? Your behaviour pushes / forces me to agree with Andy. (I often agree with him though he never has reason to know it). No tag-teaming its just what you are doing, have done, makes it happen. Andy looks to me to be quite right in these cases. Eddaido (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Failing to respond. I expect it is your nature to expect immediate fiery reactions to your, some would say fiery, actions. I'll say no more but I can see this current process might be going to take a long time. My concern is to get rid of inaccuracies, yours seems to me to be for (what you see to be "standardisation") just 2015's version of conformity.

"Didn't quite comply with the standard practises" (see conformity). Ha! This from the editor that accuses me of vandalism!

Gosh, long time since I've written so much on a talk page. Eddaido (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• So you're going to take good-faith remarks that were sincere as me trying to take the high-ground? Quite how you think I somehow object to you splitting out the Morris articles is beyond me, when I said the exact opposite (indeed, it's something I'd probably have looked to do myself.) My only objection is that you didn't change the lead for the individual articles, or the main infobox - bear in mind I've performed these splits before myself (although, admittedly, the articles I've split haven't started out in quite as much as a mess.) You do not own articles you have written, and yet you appear to think that you do. And I still don't actually see what your objection is; exactly what good faith mistakes do I need to correct? I cannot change a thing when you don't actually say what I've done wrong, and indeed you say that "I will add here that many changes you have made I do happily agree were necessary." If you have a specific objection to a change I made, regardless of what the change was, I will explain it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luke. Sorry (what turned out to be) a dead modem caused by interrupt in power supply and now I have other duties. The chain is being dragged more than I would like, this is a quick note to keep things live(ish). Thinking of conformity, why do you begin talk page paras with an asterisk?

I was taking offence at being thanked for my contribution. I only do it because I like doing it and am put out by your (maybe only apparent) presumption of superiority. Am I feeling bruised by you? Yes. Recovery nearly done. You are right. I do not own articles I have written. But if they exist in that form because I made them like that the nose goes out of joint pretty quick. As I'm near perfect when I see that a particular editor is almost entirely responsible for an article I do consult them, they may know more than I.

It has occurred to me that where you have made mistakes (i.e. acted on misunderstandings) it is because my writing was not clear enough. I promise I'll be onto it within 24 hours. Eddaido (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I use the asterisks to emphasize where things start and where they end; it's just personal preference. It's understandable that you would be a bit put out by someone changing an article you'd put a lot of work into, but the majority of my changes should've been uncontroversial (not trying to be superior at all; I'm not the one who decided the standard article formatting and all I'm trying to do is standardize things), and it is even more offputting when someone just reverts saying "discuss on talk" with no real explanation, particularly when they then say that they agree with most of your changes! There's no rush to get this resolved, take your time in getting your computer/other hardware sorted. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Logically, from your edits, every mention of you should be just Luke not Lukeno94 but Luke piped to Lukeno94. Can you see that? A kind of grand imprecision.

I believe I should go straight back up here, and where (I suppose) you do it on other people's talk pages, to remove those asterisks of yours which I find very irritating from a so-anxious conformist. 'Peacock' asterisks?? And next "take your time in getting your computer/other hardware sorted. :)" I have an idea of your level of comprehension from looking at your edits but how, in that little scenario, would I be able to be typing this so it appears on your screen?

You continue to make quite maddening "good faith" edits so I'll just let you play yourself out for now. Resumption when your edit rate has calmed. Eddaido (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, I don't change formatting on other people's pages, apart from on occasion where I'll make it more obvious that someone has replied to a comment by adding a : in (I won't change the formatting style, at least not normally). About 90% of my current edits are solely in relation to the consensus at WT:CARS with regards to how we display the manufacturer and parent company in both the lead and the infobox, WP:OVERLINK (delinking countries, removing multiple links in the lead/main body to the same place) or fixing simple typing and formatting errors. And I have no idea why you're sniping at me again - it is impossible for me to change my methods or actions if all you do is say that something is wrong whilst littering things with insults here and there, without ever specifying what, exactly, is wrong. This is not helpful to either of us; either tell me what I'm doing that is wrong, or find something else to do and leave me to edit in peace, because I can't fix something without knowing what is wrong. I would like to fix whatever is wrong, but you do not provide me the tools with which to do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Nope, its no good. I just get really angry each time I look at what you have done. I might read what you have put immediately above in a day or two. Eddaido (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• So now you're essentially going to reveal that you've been trolling all along? Good to know. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Holden Suburban

Hi, regarding this edit, in future can you please merge the contents properly rather than just deleting? Although I agree that a standalone article is unwarranted, I did spend a lot of time creating the page some years ago and I would have appreciated you finishing the job by moving the information to the appropriate page as I have now done. The article was fully referenced and was of decent quality. As has been advised to you in the past, trashing existing work of decent quality / notability without moving to an appropriate place is not particularly productive in my view. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 05:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry. Usually I do check when redirecting; evidently I forgot that time. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern stars

I hadn't noticed the 'vair section. :( I've added as much from the Polaris page as I thought made sense, instead; maybe it can get adds & cites. I've no beef with how it stands. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Tis understandable; I thought you'd missed that, as otherwise your revert wouldn't have made any sense. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Renaming categories

Hi Luke, in noticed this bold move from Category:Optare buses, a name that had been decided by consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 4. Please do not use "move" on category pages to rename categories by yourself, but use the process at WP:CFD. – Fayenatic London 18:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was unaware of the existence of the CfD discussion - it was not linked anywhere in the category (so that's hardly my fault). I'll bear that I shouldn't move things manually in future - now I know better. That CfD, for whatever reason, did not move things to where they should've been located (which is what I did) - the "buses" is a needless extra disambiguator, and does not match the way most car categories are located, or other companies who usually only made one type of product (Category:LDV vehicles, Category:Kenworth vehicles, Category:John Deere vehicles‎), although it is far from the only offender in this regard. Also, I fail to see what good you removing the CSD tag does - we're left with a needless redirect in an empty category. Regardless of that, I now know something I did not before, so thanks for that. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill

I don't think RealDealBillMcNeal is in a mood to communicate. If he continues to violate the topic ban just give me a ping. He will learn it applies one way or another. Chillum 22:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's OK, I wasn't intending to say any more to him on the matter. I was just making it crystal clear where things stood. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

Please label edits as vandalism only if they are actually vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I personally consider edits that deliberately defy standardization from an account that was only here for the purpose of reverting me to be vandalism, but I understand that may not be everyone's viewpoint. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Aero engine - grammatical tense

Hi, you may not be aware that there is a grammatical tense guideline for aero engines here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Heh, fair enough. Seems to be incompatible with a lot of other procedures, but I'll note that for future reference. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It came about because some editors had your understanding and others believed the articles should be written in past tense if none existed or just a few were preserved in museums. The perpetual edit wars stopped a long time ago. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and reverted the edits, including the same changes I made to the HS plane articles - I'm guessing there's a similar consensus there? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The aircraft project has never quite agreed on it to my knowledge, it is getting harder and harder to form a consensus there nowadays. Thanks for reverting yourself, not many editors would do that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Contrary to the belief of some people, I'm happy to go and revert myself if I see a solid reason against my change. I know what you mean about forming consensuses - that's an issue project-wide, particularly with some older editors set in the older ways. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The result is a messy stalemate, I'm seeing it more and more. We have guidelines, few people follow them and if you try to defend edits by quoting guidelines then it kicks off! I don't understand it. There is a list of missing aero engine articles if you have any sources (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Missing articles). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. I've not made myself entirely popular at a couple of WikiProjects when trying to push for some kind of standardization (partially because people are set in their ways, partially because I have a fairly short fuse when it comes to people being deliberately obstructive) I'm afraid I don't have any sources :) I only changed the tense of the HS-related things after spotting both the automobile articles had used the past tense. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to offer some thanks

Luke, I just wanted to let you know that I mean it when I say I think your edits are done in good faith. I understand that I'm being critical of a few of the changes you thought needed to be made. Please don't take those disagreements to mean I don't appreciate the overall time and effort you are volunteering. Springee (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it, however, if you were not obviously following my every move and opening up debates willy-nilly on things that shouldn't even need debating. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry, it wasn't meant to be nit picking. When you mentioned the vandal editor I looked that up. In the process I noticed the EU vs NA term edits. In the case of the engine terms you are totally correct to revert a mass of edits by a new account. But I think some latitude in the use of the template is OK when it makes sense. It seems other editors feel the same way. I did actually search a bit before posing the question. The same is true of the "Station Wagon" vs EU term question. It's hard to try to decide when it's worth making a fuss vs when we are dealing with an "I don't like it that way" issue. Anyway, again I want to tip my hat to you for taking on the work. Please don't take my disagreement on these issues as ingratitude for the effort. Springee (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)