User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 16

Coloni / Raphanel
The reason for Raphanel being shown as driving the FC188B in Hungary is that his C3 broke during PQ and he jumped in the FC188B. Here's a pic of the poor sod walking back. I do not know for sure which car he was driving when he set his fastest time, which was hopelessly slow anyway. Steve Small's GP Driver Who's Who states it was the FC188B, even though he was entered in the C3. That was the reason for the table being the way it was. How you process that info is up to you, but I thought I'd clarify it for you since you're in a Coloni mood. Good work, by the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation Bretonbanquet - the stats sites I was looking at seemed to indicate that he used the FC189/C3 at that race, so I went with that. Not sure where the supposed FC3 came from, but then, I'd seen the Leyton House CG911 randomly described as a "CG991" in a couple of places on here... I'm surprised the C3 didn't already have an article, particularly due to the farcical Subaru engine only ever being used in that car. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think those cars were called various things (not all of them polite), and I've also seen the C3 called the FC89, as well as FC3. All the modern stats sites copy from each other so you'll usually only find the weird and wonderful info in contemporary sources, books / magazines etc. As for Raphanel in Hungary, I'm sure he started off in the C3, but I can't get to the bottom of whether he set his "fast" time in that car or the spare FC188B. I'm sure he didn't care by that time anyway, and he must have been very glad to avoid the Subaru debacle. F1 was way more interesting back then ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the first time that a car has been given a bazillion different names! I often wonder exactly what Roberto Moreno could've done with a sustained run in a midfield car, rather than being bounced around between a whole bunch of them, most of them hopeless. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly – one of a number of drivers at that time who got caught up in a spiral of awful cars without ever getting a proper, sustained opportunity. A lot of chancers seemed to own teams back then, and they collectively wrecked some promising driving careers. Then Bernie made it really expensive to enter F1, and all those little teams disappeared sooner or later. Better for the image of the sport, but the downside is that a lot of good drivers now can't even get into F1, even in a hopeless car. Not sure which situation I prefer! Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say. I'd certainly welcome a 26 or 28 car grid, even if it was essentially a two-tier system. The workings of F1 have always been baffling; how did the likes of de Cesaris get so many decent drives, and yet far more talented and dependable drivers didn't? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you – more cars will always generate more excitement, even if some of them are useless. Haha, poor de Cesaris, may he R.I.P. He was a pretty handy guy towards the end of his career, but it is somewhat remarkable how he continued to get good seats while perpetually smashing cars up. He makes Maldonado look like a safe pair of hands... Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't know if you noticed, Bretonbanquet, but I put an article together on the Subaru 1235 anchor, sorry, engine. Looks like it was used in the WSC as well, with fairly predictable results... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work! It just proves what I've always thought, that failure is more interesting than success! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It often is, yes. I intend to continue filling in the remaining holes in our Formula One coverage over time; I just wish there was a F1 Rejects equivalent for sports car racing, as that would make my life there a heck of a lot easier! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of holes in our F1 coverage, especially with back-of-the-grid teams, drivers and cars. A Sports Cars F1 Rejects... hmmm...! Might be a big website! Good fun though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed it would, Bretonbanquet, even just based on some of the articles I've written about a few major flops that are often forgotten; one example being the Ford G7. (Not sure how I missed your reply here). Just finished an article on the infinitely more promising Fondmetal GR02; if only the gearbox hadn't been made out of potatoes and the team had some money! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 02:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it's our job to make sure these companies aren't allowed to forget their flops! Ah yes, I remember the Fondmetal as I was a bit of a Tarquini fan at the time. I really thought the guy could be a points-scorer in the right car. Chiesa not so much! A classic example of a basically good car, and a good bunch of guys there, but a serious lack of cash. Then the more problems they had, the less cash they had; that old vicious circle. I also remember eyebrows being raised when the Forti FG01 appeared to be a rehash of the GR02, and of course by that time it was a total dog. Shame! Another great article though, good work :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I just wish I'd been around at that time, and not been merely a twinkle in my parent's eyes, as there was so much more variety everywhere back then. Nowadays, the only major competition with a massive amount of variety is the British Touring Car Championship and perhaps some of the GT series; but even those are more closely related than they once were. The Ford G7 project was frankly hilarious to read about; quite how Ford management let that car keep their name on it, I don't know. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It definitely seemed like there was more going on in those days, and the whole sport is more homogenised and sanitised today. But the coverage then was nothing like it is now. No internet! You really had to scout around to find out what you wanted to know. I remember standing in the newsagent's reading Autosport every week because I couldn't afford to buy it... Yeah, haha, the G7 was a shocker. Why on earth anyone persevered with it, I have no idea. These days Ford would have bought all the cars back and scrapped them to avoid further embarrassment! Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and that's why there are so many holes in our sportscar coverage here, even when it comes to works/semi-works cars and very successful ones! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If only we had enough space at home for a full run of 1960s-1990s copies of Autosport! Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They'd probably get lost at my place, in amongst piles of laptops that I really need to get around to finishing and selling... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, you can always rely on work to get in your way ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not work so much as something I bought to pass the summer and time off from Uni with... and still haven't finished. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Essex V6
Helo, I wanted to ask if you could add a picture to this article :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Essex_V6_engine_(UK) since I've tried but the pictures get deleted because I don't know the copyright license , could you please add one?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, since there was an image on Wikimedia Commons of this engine. It's easiest to only upload images you've taken yourself, because the exact license is otherwise a nightmare to sort out. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Links
Hello, they weren't inappropriate links, the site was relevant to Liverpool FC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrey619 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. They weren't official links or reliable sources. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

NASCAR
http://www.jayski.com/pages/tracks-seating.htm

Here is the source for the capacities, but I was not allowed to post that link for some strange reason... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.123.104 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't a reliable source, and it certainly isn't appropriate to replace official links with. Just stop. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Lukeno94!!
Why did you restore move protection to Windows Vista? Why? I want to know why. 216.145.89.170 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you didn't remove the move protection. Only admins can do that, and I'm not an admin. Secondly, you removed the move protection template from a move protected page, which is inappropriate. Thirdly, all of your edits today suggest that you at trolling, so please, do something productive. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you have any suggestions?
A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "oppose". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours (you did express some very strong reservations, to say the least), or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or talkback ping). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Piotr, it was a year ago so I can't remember specifics; I'll just go on what I can see in that RfA. I stand by my analysis of your response to question 4; even if it was too much of a loaded question, there are much better ways of responding to it. The most obvious thing is talking about how you'd gone on to resolve the issues ArbCom brought up at the time, how you'd changed your behaviour since then, or simply stated that "I don't feel this question is neutrally worded enough to answer", or something along those lines. Making a joke about being married just made it look like you weren't taking things seriously. Question 5's answer also showed that as well; you hadn't changed your answers in a significant way from the previous RfA, and the fact that you seemed to be implying "nothing has changed" makes it hard to support you, when you'd failed that previous RfA. In terms of your more recent conduct at that time, well, I would've been going on what was presented on the RfA by other users. Personally, I'm not certain that you applying for adminship again is ever going to work; too many people are going to oppose you based on the 2009 incident even now, and every little action of yours is going to be under the microscope as a result. I certainly think that waiting another year would be sensible. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to me. In question 4, I was trying to point out it was a logical fallacy, but yes, I was too smartsy-pantsy. I have no problem with everything I do being under the microscope, as I have nothing to hide. But yes, you are right it may be good to let things cool down for another year; I can already see some people opposing what they'd denounce as a "yearly event" by know... Would you mind helping me answer the questions better? By saying "nothing has changed", I was trying to say "I have been doing nothing but uncontroversial, helpful edits since the 2009 incident". Clearly, I didn't word it well. How would you go about it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know; I'm a Chemist/computer geek, not a linguist. As such, the finer points of how to word things are beyond me; I just know what looks right and looks wrong to me personally. What I would say is that it would be best to just approach the questions from scratch, and answer them with new words; don't even look at your previous answers for them, just do totally new ones with how you feel now. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty
Thanks for your honesty at a recent discussion, Luke. I do respect your thoughts and you may be right. I appreciate that you voiced that you respect mine. Hopefully we will get to work with each other someday. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's few things as annoying as pure sheep at AfDs (in one of those discussions, at least); and I know full well that I was one of them once. The main thing is that you weren't being a total sheep there. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are so right; I've felt that way about "sheep" for awhile but never mentioned it to anyone or read anyone call it what it is, and that is good to hear we are in agreement about that; you probably noticed in my first sentence I made reference to this phenomenon. Prhartcom (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, you did. And right after your vote, we have perhaps the worst sheep vote so far. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Many ones bite the dust
A lot of people we both encountered are dropping off the radar. Here's to hoping that a few years from now, you'll be a graduate and we'll still bump into each other while editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of them were part of the Msoamu sock farm, MezzoMezzo... that took far too long to unravel, but at least we got there in the end. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pings
Just a heads-up; this probably didn't do what you expected as pings only work if they are done at the same time as you sign and date, as it needs that for the notification. Most annoying that it doesn't and fails silently, but difficult to see how else it could work. It also needs to be in a section with a header for the link, and you're limited to 20 pings at once; not a problem in this case. See the documentation at ping.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah well, thanks anyway. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Cactusjackbangbang
Regarding this, an SPI has been filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. Regardless of the AfD, I think it's obvious there is a sock farm going after Neelix, and that Jdh9 is part of it. They made three edits, and then jumped right into both AfDs of Neelix articles. I don't see why we should allow further disruption. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When a user has edits outside of the AfD on completely unrelated subject matters (or at least, not particularly obvious subject matters), it is inappropriate to automatically remove the vote based on a sockpuppet allegation, particularly if they've made an opposing vote to yours (as happened in this case; I know you didn't do the reverting, but that's not what I'm saying). I'm well aware of the sockpuppet/meatpuppet farm that is targeting Neelix; in fact, I've alluded to it on multiple occasions in that AfD, and if I saw a user make their first edit in that AfD voting to delete, I would remove it myself. We should not, after all, assume someone is guilty until proven innocent; that is the wrong way around entirely, and AGF does just stretch far enough to be relevant here (other possible explanations being that they were canvassed). Let's not forget that the account does predate the AfDs, after all. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can see the case for erring on the side of AGF. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you can. If Jdh9 is blocked for being a sock, then I'd happily remove the edit myself. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Neymar: Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015
Hi there.

I see you have rejected my suggestion for an addition of a section called "Tattoos" to Neymar's page, on the base of "as per WP:TRIVIA". I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't understand if you have denied it because you find the content unappropriated or if you need me to write the subject down as I think it should be written in the page. I have done the suggestion the way I did just because I thought it was the correct way to propose it.

In case you consider that the topic is unappropriated, I ask you to please reconsider based on the following two reasons:

1. Other players already have such a section, like David Beckham, Raul Meireles, other (didn't bother to look around) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Beckham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Meireles

2. In "WP:TRIVIA" I found nothing against my suggestion, and it is stated:
 * "(...) A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. (...)
 * "(...) If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. (...)"

I appreciate your answer, and excuse my lack of experience in Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance.

Cheers, Luisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinheiro a (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Luisa; welcome to Wikipedia! (I've left a welcome note on your talk page). The simplest response to this is that, on Wikipedia, just because one article contains information on a particular subject, it doesn't mean that another has to. Now, if Neymar's tattoos were the subject of discussion in various independent reliable sources, then it might be something that is valid to include; you only referenced one source, which was a primary one. However, I don't think tattoos are a particularly encyclopaedic topic; a lot of people have them, and they're not really relevant. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Luke,
 * thank you for the welcome note, I will check it carefully soon. There are many reliable sources talking about Neymar's tattoos, nevertheless, the "primary source" I have indicated for the edit is the only one I could find that makes a good gathering of all information. I believe that for this topic (of tattoos) it's irrelevant to have a "reliable source", as looking at tattoos in photos and transcribing them does not require any proven reliability, and its veracity is easily verifiable by anyone. Isn't your statement regarding tattoos "(...) a lot of people have them, and they're not really relevant" showing that you are letting your personal opinion about tattoos interfere with your decision? To the fans, to Neymar, and to many other people who consider tattoos an art the tattoos are certainly relevant. Don't you agree with me?

(sorry if I am answering this the wrong way - through an edit - but I found no other way).
 * Cheers, Luisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinheiro a (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issues with tattoos; the issue is that including information about them in a person's article is generally trivia, and Wikipedia isn't about trivia. Everything on Wikipedia revolves around reliable sources, and I'm not disputing the reliability of the source here, hence the comment "independent". Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, another bold statement: "Wikipedia isn't about trivia". Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia In this page it is clear that relevant trivia should be included in the articles, and only "trivia sections" should be avoided. Trivia should be integrated in the text without creating trivia sections. In this specific case, I believe the topic "tattoos" could be part of his "personal life" section. Just out of curiosity, isn't the statement "Neymar is a Christian" on his personal life also Trivia? It is also written in the page I referred above - regarding handling trivia by wikipedia - that: "(...) It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers. (...)". Therefore, it looks like you are one of these editors who block content to his likes (I recommend some introspection). I feel this discussion will lead nowhere, so thank you for your time. Regards, Luisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinheiro a (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, and is just another user's opinion; as such, it carries no more weight than my own opinion. And yes, his religious status could indeed be classed as trivia unless he happens to be strongly religious. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Honda CRZ price update
Hi Lukeno94,

I just wanted to give more recent update information on the Honda CRZ price slash of one million Pak.rupees. I have no affiliation with Honda or the website whose reference I gave. I'm a farmer by profession and was just browsing and saw the old price mentioned,so I thought of updating the information. If you think it's wrong ,you can delete the edit I made. take care.

Adnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnakhnpk (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Adnakhn, if it wasn't spam, then the wording was still completely promotional, and was probably a copyright violation of the source. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

GM Futurliner Page.
I have provided edits with pictures to the GM Futurliner page with permission of the necessary picture owners,  This will be your last chance to revert back to my changes, or you will be reported to a real admistrator. You can not go around pretending that you are. Per The Wikipedia Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbschev (talk • contribs) 01:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another high-and-mighty user who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. You have absolutely NO evidence that you have permission for those pictures, and even if you do, you claimed that each and every one was your own work, sometimes with dates that were later than the exact same image had been uploaded on the web previously. But sure, go ahead and report me for removing copyrighted images, or images that you added with terrible formatting in an inappropriate manner; I'm sure that'll go very well for you. And no, I have never pretended to be a "admistrator", let alone an "administrator". Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Pistol Page
The page you edited referring to pistols was done erroneously, while you may believe a revolver is not a pistol, a simple search for "define revolver turns up: "re·volv·er rəˈvälvər/ noun noun: revolver; plural noun: revolvers

"a pistol with revolving chambers enabling several shots to be fired without reloading."

Since this page was changed not based on fact, but personal opinion, I will be reporting you unless the page is reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigy 16 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The page explicitly states that there is an inconsistency in the definition of what a pistol is; you simply state one definition of it. Dictionary.com defines it as a handgun. So do Merriam-Webster. The only dictionary source I immediately see that supports your claim is the Oxford one. But sure, go ahead and report me; I'm sure that'll go very well for you... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Luke. I saw your reports at WP:AIV referring to this editor. I have blocked both the account and the IP address that you reported for a week. If it were just a matter of block-evasion it would have been for a much shorter time, but in my opinion the malicious stalking of your edits put the case into a more serious category. However, I thought it only fair to let you know that I can't see why you weren't blocked for edit-warring, as well as the IP editor, and I have asked the blocking administrator for clarification. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should I have been blocked, JamesBWatson? I didn't violate 3RR, and was careful not to. Meanwhile, the IP made four reverts. Thanks for blocking the account and other IP though. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI revert
Hello Lukeno94. Please don't get upset when you get the revert-notification about one of your edits I undid at the ANI-Binksternet thread. Most of the reasons for my action I stated already in the edit summary. Fact is that Mr. Guye added an oppose vote after the original withdrawal, and then it was hidden in an "extended content" box, but not deleted. Later, Blue Salix added a support vote, and you deleted it. Having yourself voted oppose, I'm really uncertain what to think about it. Although the proposal was withdrawn, and the instruction "please do not add anything" has been followed by almost everyone, the thread was not formally closed. In my opinion, none of the involved voters, including me, should redact other peoples' edits there. (Please answer here, if you like, I'll watchlist it.) Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it would've made everyone's lives easier if, after the proposal was withdrawn, someone would've actually closed the damn thing. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In principle, I agree with you. (However, the thread was archived, but never formally closed, in the meanwhile.) But then, at the last moment we were presented with Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869. I think that was an important contribution to the underlying discussion of the infobox-succession box-imbroglio. "What we don't do is create little content fiefdoms by using a project or a template as a backdoor to impose changes over a broad swath of articles without seeking consensus amongst the editors there as to how content will be handled there." disagrees sharply with Number57's closing rationale at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18. The question is: "Can 12 people, 11 of whom do not usually edit in the area of congressmen, establish "consensus" for a change that affects several thousand articles, by citing rationales likes "agree" or "per the above/per User N.N.", or giving the rationale "it declutters the box" when writing "redistricted" in place of a person's name leaves the box of the exact same size, at a "hidden" venue without notifying the pertaining wiki projects?" Redacted The RfC was added to RfCs on "Politics, government, and law" and "Biographies", the header is discarded at archiving. For me it was an eye-opener, and has made the whole report worth it's while. As far as I could ascertain, the change to "redistricted" in the infobox was actually done only at Michael Grimm, Charles B. Rangel, and the four Californians of Binksternet, and nowhere else. So there is another question: "Can somebody drum up a few people to establish "consensus" that affects several thousand articles, to use the new "consensus" only at his two pet articles, and provoke everybody who comes across them and notes the inconsistency, into an argument eventually leading to edit-warring about it?" Kraxler (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have/had no idea about the exact context at hand, and frankly, it didn't matter. All I saw was a bunch of people jumping on Binksternet in an excessive manner, seeking a 0RR restriction, which seemed nuts. A 1RR restriction might've been more sensible, and certainly would've required more than a passing glance to determine... but 0RR? I'd forgotten you'd filed that particular request, and I don't see why you didn't archive it when you withdrew it; the "something for both sides to keep in mind" came four days after you withdrew your request. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my first ANI report. The 0RR was probably over the top, as soon as I recognized that, I withdrew it. Next time I need to report something there I'll try it with 1RR. As to archiving it myself, I'm not sure that would have been a good move. Just to close formally a withdrawn proposal led to another controversy. I'm not sure what would have happened if I had archived it. It was eventually archived by a bot. Kraxler (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what's going on here. You and I are referring to two different sorts of archiving; you're talking about the one where the bot moves it to an archive page, whilst I'm referring to the method of archiving using the archive top and archive bottom templates on a withdrawn/closed discussion. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's not fight over "The Incredibles"
I understand that your undoing my edits. But the word count is over 700 on the Incredibles. Let's not fight over the word count. We don't want to get blocked for edit wars. I am a sad strange little Wikia contributor and you have my pity,(does a Vulcan salute from Star trek and Toy Story) Farewell. --81.97.18.158 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree, for the most part. However, this particular edit (ie, the first of your two) made things objectively worse in my opinion, not better, and I'm not the only editor of that opinion (User:Sjones23 also reverted you on that front.) Also, I get your reference from the end of your comment, so a note to any talk page stalkers: please don't admonish this IP for their joke at the end! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for cleaning up VP151's dmy edits to Windows 10. I did 8 and 8.1 (which were just clicks of "undo") but was going to do 10 when back at my desk and my two screens. N.B.: See also VP151's recent thread here. Jeh (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, Jeh. That decision seems nonsensical to me, and that's me saying that as a Brit who uses DMY! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also a related discussion here. Jeh (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Fenway talk rv
Is there a reason for this edit? I wouldn't call a single comment asking for fence heights "mass trolling". 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. That user went and made the exact same request across a large amount of talk pages; however, I got distracted by something and only reverted the one. I'm not going to object to you restoring it, if you see fit to do so. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And indeed, another user has done so. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looked to me like a user with a really keen interest in fence heights for some reason. Moot point now I suppose.  19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicities in leads
What's up with this revert? It looks like it's correcting an MOS violation, so I'm curious as to the motivation for the series of reversions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Main article explicitly states she is French-Canadian (that article is a GA, so I doubt it's much of a violation, if any); besides, look at the rapid-fire changes with no attempt to discuss, and you'll see why I pulled the trigger. Also note the personal attacks and flurries of vandalism by this user since being reverted. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An example of the rubbish that got thrown into articles afterwards. User in question was clearly trolling. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I have no issue with either nationality being used, and used consistently; but changing it at that rate, as a brand-new user, without any explanation or consensus is simply not OK. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. It looks to me like a bit of ethnic pride has led to an MOS (and potentially BLP) violation. I agree the editor himself may be trouble, and I will look into that as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Editor in question has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism (which is quite right, for their reactions to the reversions were blatant vandalism). I don't think it's a BLP violation as it does seem to be directly sourced in the main article, but I'm not super familiar with the nuances of the MOS, so can't really argue that one too much. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like your reversions were sound.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did check the main article before reverting, so that would be why. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Rugby union transfer pages
Do you have any problems with the rugby union transfer pages? Nobody has broken any rules at all. I am doing something that is upsetting you or not? NikeCage68 (talk) 17:51, 29 January (UTC)
 * The ones I have nominated for deletion violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON (for all bar one of them, we don't even have regular season articles yet!) Personally, I don't think any of these transfer articles should exist, as practically no other sport has such things, but that's not the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with any specific editor, although it was the edit warring that brought them to my attention. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is just some edit warring that has just become silly, then there is no problem. These transfer pages are not causing any problems. Is this correct? NikeCage68 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit warring was silly, yes, but the pages still don't satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

These transfer edits have happened for several years from other editors. Several editors debated about this and afterwards these transfer edits were moved to new pages. That was all. They just left it alone entirely afterwards and let the editing to continue. Why do you think this does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria since it started to happen years ago? If this was really a serious problem, would you have stopped this some time ago? NikeCage68 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say this one last time; the only pages I nominated for deletion were for future seasons. Lists of transfers for future seasons violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I know what you are saying. No offense. I am just asking politely that these current (2015-16 season) transfer pages are going to get deleted, right. NikeCage68 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion about whether they are valid or not should be held on the AfD pages. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say, but the AfD pages will decide if they are to be deleted or kept. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand, okay. It was just misspelling on my part. I just needed to know who decides on this matter. How long will this problem be solved? NikeCage68 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus of multiple editors decides this matter, and it will take at least a week from the initial nomination. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I still think the transfer pages should not be deleted but will just have to wait and see what happens. NikeCage68 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

English footballer heights
Hello Lukeno94. I don't understand why you don't want to obey the Wikipedia MOS guidelines which says use feet and inches first for English people. I live in England and know it is true. The footballer's trade union, the Professional Footballers' Association, produce the football bible called "The PFA Footballers' Who's Who" and that uses only feet and inches for heights with no meters. We should follow the English customs and the WP rules I think. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I live in England as well, but it's not quite as clear cut as "it is true". I'm pretty sure there was a discussion about this recently on WP:Football, but I can't remember what the outcome was. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that more English people use meters than feet and inches then? And why do you think the PFA only use feet and inches and not meters if meters should be used? And why do you want to ignore WP:UNITS? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question 1: I think that it varies quite a lot, depending on which age group you ask. Question 2: Websites can do whatever the heck they want. Question 3: I don't, but I remember there being a recent discussion on WT:WikiProject Football; just not the result of it (I recommend you go and look up the debate). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think even kids and younger people mainly use feet and inches for height, like their mums and dads do. But most people in total do for def. If you don't want to ignore WP:UNITS then will you agree with my requests at the Man City players to put feet and inches first then please? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly plan to get involved in any further debates on this matter (or to continue in the Lampard one). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You say you don't want to disagree with WP:UNITS, but you've just scuppered my attempt to comply with it. I want to see feet and inches so am trying to get an agreement. Will you remove your disagreement if you don't want involvement please? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the need to. I just intend to disengage completely from this debate (and please don't message me again about it) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to  comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Links
I have a dedicated site for the updated links I've provided so it's not spamming; one or two of the links you have do not exist anymore, so they should be updated. Please retain my links as they will be useful to new owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.150.71 (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if they're updates or new links; if they're not from the official company themselves, they should not be there. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverts to GCR Class 8B and GCR Class 8G
Hi,

The reason that I removed Category:London and North Eastern Railway locomotives from GCR Class 8B and GCR Class 8G, is that they are already in that category via the redirects under their LNER class – LNER Class C4 and LNER Class B9 respectively. None of the other ex-GC, GE, GN, NB, or NE locomotive articles are in that category either – they also have redirects from their LNER class. Just as well really – it would be very messy if they were. See commons:Category:London and North Eastern Railway steam locomotives to see what I mean. Regards – Iain Bell (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that makes more sense. I would recommend you make a note in your edit summaries in future, to prevent people like me being confused. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.
Thanks a lot for your input and going to bat for me. Really am a new editor, so thanks a lot man. Also, PCMR represent.FlossumPossum (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. The fallout around GamerGate is pretty large, and affects articles that aren't remotely GG related; as such, FlossumPossum, I recommend caution when approaching any article that had heavy input from Ryulong for the next couple of weeks. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Your edit summary on Darren Fletcher
What do you mean the admins are being useless? It's not up to the admins to revert vandalism, it's up to people like you and me, and you only requested the page be protected 20 minutes ago. – PeeJay 23:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference to page protection, and general frustration at the multiple requests I made not being dealt with. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 05:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Sims 4
Hello,

The Sims 4: MAC Version is coming Feb 17 2015, should've reference it myself. But here is the source and you can change and also source it.

https://twitter.com/TheSims/status/562309609751576576

Joe Parkinson (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joe; I'd been looking for an official announcement on a website somewhere, and a newspiece from a couple of hours before that Twitter status made no mention of a release date (indeed, it stated that it was still unconfirmed). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 05:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Essex V4
Hello, I've been working and adding as much information as I can to the Essex V4 engine page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Essex_V4_engine , and I was wondering if you could upload and add a picture maybe ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Before uploading, one first has to have such a picture. To meet Commons rules, such a picture has to be "freely licensed". In most cases that comes down to the uploader taking the photo themselves and then choosing to give it such a free licence. It's rare that an editor can find such an image, belonging to another owner and that it has a suitable licence already. What we can't do (as you've done previously) is to take someone else's image and then try to add a licence to it. If it's not your image, you don't get to choose its licence.
 * As you're clearly interested in Ford engines, do you go to any of the Ford-related car shows? Can you take a photo there?    Do you even have your own car already? - doesn't have to be concours! Just take a picture of that.  Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy is 100% correct, Laurie. Sadly, I do not have any images of the Essex V4 engine; I don't think I've even seen a Essex V4-engined car in real life, to be perfectly honest. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

i do in fact own a Ford Capri with a Essex V6, Essex V4 engines are a fair bit more rare -Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

RSC Gold
Hi you would like access to RSC Gold are there any specific resource include in there which are not available through your university because normally in the UK access to RSC Resources is quite extensive?--Saehrimnir (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have RSC membership at the moment (couldn't afford it, money is that tight), so I wouldn't have access to anything. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dora
Hi. I did not understand your Revert about Dora. I reverted by mistake and saw that he invented new episodes by mixing the series. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - you self-reverted, and that's fine (which is what I thanked you for, Panam2014). It was simply part of a long list of rollbacks of vandalism by that IP, and whoever is behind that IP has a history of exactly this kind of fakery. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Quique Flores
Hi there LUKE, ALWAYSLEARNING (or what's left of him) "here",

regarding your change of lead in this article, I can't really say that I agree with it, I tend to keep intros concise, your version looks like a second storyline with all due respect, but we have to respect each other around here and work as a team, so all I can say is "keep up the good work".

Speaking of respect (or lack thereof), thanks for reverting the punk that's been on my case for three years (on and off) because of the Flores article, now he changes from insults (some vile) to social service ("Go find a girlfriend"), "nice" of him... More details on his interaction with me and the resulting "kindness" can be found here.

Cheers, happy week --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I GTranslated the insult, just because I was curious about what they'd said. The problem with the previous lead was that it really didn't give enough detail, and wasn't really in-line with the "standard" recommended way of doing things; "main club" isn't defined properly, and his spell at Real Madrid was definitely worthy of proper note. He also has had a large amount of managerial jobs, yet it really didn't give any specifics there. For example, noting that he's managed Getafe twice gives a bit of extra context. There's always a few people who simply can't move on from past disputes; sadly, looks like you've found one of them. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

???
So your only problem because i changed the way dashes are inserted ?? really ?? who said there is a standard for it... ?!?!

Adnan (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That, and your inappropriate changes to the league style as well. It should look like this. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

cheers
 * ok mate...i am not sure how i messed up the standards still i just put the name of the league one time rather than keep putting it again, and i didn't really find something about dashes but cool thank you for being civil and explaining it here do whatever you think it is correct

Adnan (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BS revenant
Hi. I think you had some involvement with this nonsense last time round? well it's back. Already marked for speedy so I hope it's gone again soon. Not sure what (if anything) to do about the editor though :( Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just spotted it as being deleted in my watchlist :) If they recreate the page again, and have done nothing else of value in the meantime, report them to AIV. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks. I have had a go at being, er, "nice", but I'm very unclear as to whether it can possibly bear fruit. And if it doesn't, and this continues, then at least I can go to AIV or ANI with a clear conscience. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive?
How is it disruptive in any sense? I have included references with truth behind them. It's asinine to give a warning for something that actually is both truthful. Also, removing the entire paragraph is a pretty petty move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.163.194 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, your passages of text are so far from neutral that it isn't funny. Half the time, they're not properly sourced and/or are trivia/non-notable things as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of Rollback
Rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism. This edit should have been undone with an explanatory edit summary. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct; I have a bad habit of occasionally hitting the wrong button. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

International Goals dispute
Why was mine stated as "unexplained revert" when PeeJay did the exact same thing to me? (btw him saying int'l goals aren't necessary isn't good enough for me). If these international goals are against consensus, where do I see them stated in the guidelines or discussions? I asked him this and he ignored me. Also, if international goals are so useless, whey do they show up on majority of articles for footballers? Why aren't these removed from other player's pages? There is absolutely no consistency and I'm not seeing it stated anywhere saying that it's "against consensus."

Also Thierry Henry which is a featured article contains an international goals section, so don't tell me Park Ji-sung is some sort of special case.

Please let me know when you have a chance. Thanks. GWST11 (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because one editor has made an unexplained revert does not give you the right to do the same thing. The fact that you've deliberately - and rather lamely - threatened to edit war over this is just disappointing. The chart shouldn't be in Henry's article, and I've since removed it. WP:NOTSTATS is the most obvious explanation of why they're invalid. There are several discussions where it was generally decided not to include such laundry lists of goals;, , , etc. Granted, there's no one concrete discussion where it was decided "we will not use these", but general consensus is clearly against their inclusion.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that concrete discussions about assists columns in tables have been had, and come to solid results of not including them; however, many articles still do, because no-one has bothered to remove them yet. Ditto a few with yellow/red cards. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed explanation. Personally I believe they are a great source of information. International games are different from club football (bigger competition, representing the country instead a city, and the stats won't accumulate too much - less caps). Assists are useless I agree. Anyways I will not make any further changes without discussing/collaborating first.GWST11 (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the collected edition edits.
How are they "nonsensical"? They are simply listings of the reprinted material (content and ISBN numbers) which help the reader find the actual books themselves. By the way most comic book entries on wikipedia have a collected edition sections and they are a helpful reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseableID (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, UseableID, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means that just because something is present in one article, doesn't mean it should be in another. Secondly, there is no context given for these comic book lists, nor is there any evidence for why they should be there. Thirdly, in some of these articles, if you were to include every single comic that mentions a character, the list would be about the same size as China... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So i'm assuming you will be deleting more, if not every section of collected editions on comic book entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseableID (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Only the ones I see. I don't have the time to go through every article and delete every single mention (I also have far better things to do with my time). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I still think it is useful infromation to have on the page. Why do you think it isn't helpful to know where to find the source material? It is the same as TV show pages listing detailed DVD and/or blu ray releases as to let the readers know which set has which episodes. The collected editions sections is the same but for comics. They are called TPB's. Obviously every appearance isn't written down on the entry, just the selected reprints which are the collected editions.UseableID (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All of those things probably fall under WP:FANCRUFT, unless there's actual prose dedicated to them. Laundry lists of random comic publications are not encyclopaedic, and only belong on a fan wiki, I'm afraid. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I am familar with "fancruft", but I don't see how listing the most current available formats of the material discussed in the entries falls under "fancruft". It is simply a note of what stories of the character are available for the reader to borrow/purchase/find in real life. Specifically the popular or major stories which are mentioned in the entries themselves are the only ones to be "collected" in the first place, hence my listing of them on these entries.UseableID (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any definition of "collectable" is going to be pure original research, I'm afraid. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory or listing for random comic book publications. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of rollback
Hello. It seems that you have been using the rollback feature a lot lately for edits that are not blatantly vandalism,, , etc... If you are going to use the rollback feature to revert widespread edits by a misguided editor which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, you must provide an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page.  Puffin  Let's talk! 02:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would personally consider editors who make blanket changes like that, without any explanation, to be vandals (removing a valid category just because it doesn't support your PoV is a pretty good sign of that in my eyes). This is one of the more subtle ones, I will grant you that. Call it a lack of good faith if you will, but it's just based on plenty of prior experience. Also, the reason why it seems like I have used rollback a lot recently is quite simple; I haven't had time to do more than revert vandals/unconstructive editors over the last few weeks, so the reverting isn't buried in amongst the content building I would usually be doing as well - and would prefer to be doing! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 02:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for being the voice of reason. That can be really thankless in this volatile place... I tried to make the same distinction, here, but when people have the smoke of battle in their nostrils, I guess any and all distinctions go against the grain. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
 * No problem, Bish. This is a mess even by Eric-being-blocked standards; incorrect rationales and bizarre tangents are flying all over the place. I don't think anything has made any sense, or been done properly, since the very beginning of this particular issue... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Motor Racing Race Results
Hi Luke. I see some recent edits were made to Pepe Massot's entry specifically for the 2014 season.

I have tried to read the history to see what occured and when but suffice to say I have added the 2014 Porsche Carrera Cup results table back in... I saw more reason for this to be on the page than the one (dismal) result for the end of season Supercup entry.

Anyway I don't want to be impolite with my edits and my barbed comment on the edit summary isn't aimed at you :) Please let me know if I have edited the page incorrectly or if you feel I shouldn't have added this table back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul ss1 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. It wasn't my decision to remove the table, and nor do I really agree with it, but there are a couple of editors who try and rule the Motorsport-related articles with an iron fist, and things end up complying to their whims, one way or another. Also, Paul, please make sure you sign your posts in future, using four tildes ( ~ ), thank you. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, cheers Luke. Thanks also for the signing tip. Didn't quite know what that was before... Paul ss1 (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. You'd think that, after all of these years, they'd have made it so your talkpage posts were automatically signed, and didn't need a bot to come in and fix any unsigned posts! Ah well. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrolled?
[Dubiously.] Patrolled my page..? Huh. Well. Thank you, I guess..? (Patrolled?) Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the barnstar, and no problem :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Global Peace and Unity
Dear Lukeno94, I hope you are well. Please could you have a look at the recent edits on the Global Peace and Unity page? Am I missing something? The last editor keeps re-inserting unreferenced contentious claims, but says they are referenced. Thank you, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, in this instance, you are the one who was incorrect. The new user is referring to the citations at the end of the sentence "Critics pointed at that speakers at the event included", which very clearly mention all four of those people. Equally, when you removed the names, you left in the aforementioned sentence, which made it look odd. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahhh yes, you are quite right. For some reason I couldn't see what was right in front of me. Thank you Luke. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)