User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 17

Eagle eyes
Good work on that whole situation earlier today! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One of those lucky moments where the vandal hit an article in my watchlist, I spotted it, and immediately hit the rollback button when I saw what they'd done. One look at the edit history, and saw they were pulling the exact same kind of crap - so nuked those articles. And the moment the article was created, I made the mental link between them and the master (before that, I was unsure exactly who they were a sock of, I just knew that they were going to be a sock; there's a few IPs with a similar modus operandi that are also getting blocked). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are they French IPs? See User:Samwalton9/Maelbros. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As it turns out - yes, yes the recent ones are French IPs. Both point back to Orange Orleans. I'm also referring to some past vandals that pulled the exact same kind of bollocks on a bunch of video gaming articles as well as films/TV - but then it turns out those were French IPs as well (pointing to "Societe Francaise Du Radiotelephone"). So it does look like they're all one and the same. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to tag my reversions when I notice certain patterns. In case it's helpful, here are some of my recent problems with IPs in France. Looks like there were a lot from the ISP SFR and lately they've been from Orange. Also, feel free to contact me if you ever need info. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Always a good idea - I generally don't have time at the moment to do such things, so I'm forced to use rollback (as it is obvious vandalism after all) and try and get things dealt with by other people (beyond just the blocking). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you! (Especially today/yesterday)

 * Thanks :) Unfortunately, I'm about to go to bed, because it's 2:30 am and I'm exhausted, so hopefully things won't go wrong in the mean time. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 02:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

AN/I notification
Hi--just telling you that I mentioned you at AN/I here about Bryce Carmony. Origamiteⓣⓒ 04:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sig faker appears to be User:IJBALL here and here. Note that they specifically changed it to look like yours. Origamiteⓣⓒ 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Already discovered that, and messed them. Thanks though. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid
Hello Luke, 31 podiums is possible, count them in the results table... 16 wins, 13 2nds 2 3rds. Total 31.... (2 cars involved). Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how that field works. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, well how does it work? There's no instruction at Template:Infobox racing car and in the example given on that page the field has not been completed. Just asking cos in other motor sport "reporting" projects I'm involved in, podiums would be shown as 31. Perhaps there has been some earlier discussion on the matter I'm not aware of? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One per team entry, not one per driver. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK that's fine, but where does it say so? And that wasn't clear from your edit summary. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Logic says so. Then again, the podiums field tends not to be included on the most successful cars anyway, looking at Ferrari F2002, Ferrari F2004 and McLaren MP4/4... although I can't say if they may predate the field or not. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Um no... to say it is "logical" could be considered a little supercilious... as it really isn't. But if it's the accepted way of Wiki/other editors then it's fine. Maybe we could raise it at the F1 talk page? Eagleash (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Username
Hi, Its my name Shitesh Sachan and I used the same for my username shiteshsachan. What is wrong in it. Please understand it. Shiteshsachan (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is your real name, Shiteshsachan, then that's fine, and I apologize :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 02:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nicklas Bendtner
You just made your third revert, please review The three-revert rule which you have violated. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 19:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're not familiar with WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:3RR? "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". WP:CIR, and you seem to be lacking in it right now. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Eidur Gudjohnsen
Hello, Why have you undone my edit for international goals saying the wikiproject says no to these. Most international players have their international goals on here. Please explain. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Every discussion I've seen on these tables has said no to including them, although it probably wouldn't hurt to start another one. They are sometimes OK if the player has only scored a couple of goals, but not those who have scored a lot of goals. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

72.196.235.154
Thanks for reverting that edit of Women in India. I really forgot to revert it.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd guessed that was the case. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time reverting to keep the vandalism notices on that IP's page in the future; the block log will take care of it for you, for the most part. Save yourself the hassle and annoyance. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Problem is that this case has been apparently mishandled. Do we take the words of sock puppets if they claim that "we are brothers" after getting blocked before for socking? I guess we don't, and if we did, that means we tell them to try other ways for socking and that happened here. Now he is able to fool CU results. We also know that such problems are not recent and for years even other incompetent editors have been able to fool CU results. Have a good reading at User:OccultZone/sandbox. Note that none of these accounts are currently blocked except that IP(72.) that we talked about. While the potential long term abuse remains on going since 2010.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, I don't think the socking issue even matters. This IP, on its own, is clearly disruptive enough to warrant blocking solely on that - and, no, WP:BROTHER suggests that family-blaming is generally not believed. CU is only good up to a point, and it really isn't that hard to game (I'm pretty sure I could do it very easily indeed if I really wanted to - but I don't intend to, and have no need of doing so!), so it is only good for catching out the lazier/less clued-in vandals. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You said the right thing, it is now mostly for catching the clueless vandals. Have a nice day, and thanks again.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, thanks, and you as well. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger, but-
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just Colton Cosmic again. Deleted. --Neil N  talk to me 16:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Surprise surprise. Thanks for that - yes, I was a bit incivil on the page in question (I think that may be putting it mildly); I hold my hands up to that, and it's not the only example recently. I try and make up for it when I can, but sometimes stress brings the worst out in me, particularly when I'm faced with someone who clearly isn't paying attention. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That ANI was crushed all too soon! Would've been more fun to have given it a bit more rope... Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  16:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Had a legitimate user raised the thread, they'd probably have had a valid case on the incivility front... except from the fact that no one had actually tried to discuss things with me. Still, it's amusing to see the petty attempts at getting their own back... particularly when they rush to do so, and simply didn't see where Khanyusufkhalil came into it all. Also, I didn't violate 3RR, and CC knew that, but tried to muddy the waters anyway. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Amusing that CC is still wasting people's time with trying to force the thread onto ANI. "I don't sock" my ass. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amusement Vision, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wantage Hall page
First of all, it seemed sensible to talk to you here instead of the edit description.

Secondly, I have not changed my username- I am new to editing Wikipedia pages, in fact this was my first, so I don't know what you are referring to.

I am currently living in Wantage Hall for a second year, and next year will be my third. I am also about to start my second term on the JCR Committee, so I know Wantage fairly well. I have just edited this article because we are starting to think about the people living at Wantage next year. The first thing I did when I got my place at Reading was Google the Hall, and I found the old Wikipedia page very helpful. The article in its current state is of no use to any new students.

When editing this article I referenced thoroughly, using official sources, which I doubt you attempted to validify, since you undid my edits so quickly. I myself had to wait for a book (which was referred to in my edit) to be taken out of storage from the Reading University Library, which took about a month. As you are a student at the University, you should also be able to access this, which I advise you do if you wish to continue editing this page.

I feel that I better know how much detail is relevant than you, because as I said, I am an active resident within the hall. I would like to know why you think it is necessary to shorten this page to four short paragraphs. I would argue that the part about 'Private's Progress' is more irrelevant than half of the information you removed from this page.

It is clear from the amount of edits you have made to this page that you are very passionate about this, but I question your authority, and why you should get to choose what is relevant?

Aperrett (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I should apologize for that remark about you not being new; last year there was a spate of IPs and one or two new accounts adding in a huge amount of unsourced detail (12kB worth), and I'd forgotten it was quite so long ago (the fact they were in March of last year is why - I saw the editing history, remembered the incident, and forgot about the 2014 part!) However... Wikipedia is not suitable for everything. Random information on "traditions", which are pretty much meaningless, have no place on Wikipedia as per WP:TRIVIA, even when sourced (and half of them weren't). The JCR section is pointless as that applies to all of the UoR halls, as I'm sure you're aware. "The building can also be hired for weddings and receptions." - something else that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You also changed the image caption to one that I'm not certain is accurate, and added in an unsourced date of opening. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , just to add a word to what Luke has said: this is an encyclopaedia; we want the content to be complete, but not to include stuff that is not conceivably of general interest (especially if it is unreferenced stuff). Ask yourself, if students in a hall of residence in rural Bulgaria had traditions about what kind of hat should be worn on Walpurgisnacht, would you want to read about them? There's plenty of scope to expand the Wantage Hall page from reliable sources, including the book you've found (which appears to be so rare that it is not listed in Worldcat or the BL). The stuff about traditions and so on belongs on a student webpage, not here, and the stuff about washbasins is already on the university page, which is where that belongs. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

YOTO
Why you Not approving my Article "YOTO". I f it is looks like advertisements then whats about jockey and other brands? they have done same things here but you made approved their articles but you had not accept my articles. do you have any problem with me everytime? We had put proper references in my article. If you just want to make speedy deletion then why you still making editing and new article option? I am highly unsatisfied with wikipedia. CRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your company. You clearly have a conflict of interest, and yet you have not disclosed that. Issues with the other articles you mention fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and no, you didn't put proper references in. You cited everything to your company. I recommend you find something else to do; you're clearly not compatible with Wikipedia. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham Central Mosque
Dear Luke, I hope you are well. Can you please look at the recent edit history of Birmingham Central Mosque. It's not nice to be called a religious hypocrite by User:AHLM13 -- again -- merely because I asked for evidence for his addition. Thanks a lot, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  mediation

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

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 443rd recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And once again, thank you. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * About the "right to edit an article", I read this year (!): "Live editing to a featured article is not such a good idea", not mentioning hidden notices about what not to add, - the free encyclopedia ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can understand where they're coming from there at least, but it is a bit dodgy. As for hidden notes about what not to add, well, sometimes you need those because editors keep inserting obviously inappropriate things in. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for introducing me to Joe Public ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know a single thing about the situation, but...
If you're so so so sure that KateY98 is a sock, then why haven't you either blocked it or had it blocked? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * SPI filed, ISP and city matches according to the CU, behaviour matches and is clearly not indicative of a new account. Tried AIV, got shut down despite the obviousness of the socking. In other words, I'm in the process of doing, the SPI just needs an admin to pull the trigger. Sockpuppet investigations/TheEditor2000001 :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Amaryllis Gardener  - the user in question has now been blocked. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good! Thanks for the reply. :) -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In fairness to Lukeno94, he took the steps that are necessary. I am quite concerned about the article in question, which to me is very obviously promotional and clearly written by a bunch of single-purpose accounts; it's practically a textbook example of our notability guidelines being so lax that all the COI rules and fancy terms of use in the world have essentially no effect. If we're willing to keep articles like this in spite of their obvious commercial intent, we're not going to get very far stopping paid advocacy editing. It doesn't help that the only people/persons who seem to care about the fact that we've got this spam in our article space are at minimum practicing coordinated editing (I suspect they're schoolmates of the article subject). I'd lay odds Lukeno94 is pretty much the only active editor watching the page; most of the rest are the blocked socks and the SPAs that created the article.  Risker (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he did satisfy notability guidelines, even if he may not be that notable within his world. But yeah, the article is stuck between a bunch of overtly promotional editors on one side, and a coordinated meat-and-sock campaign dedicated to their smear campaign. Worst of both worlds, and it's usually the sort of thing you'd find on religious articles or other controversial topics, not some random investor. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's something seriously wrong with our notability guidelines when someone who is not notable within his own field is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, for the most part... but then it is possible to be non-notable in your field and yet somehow stir up coverage anyway, which could lead to your general notability being beyond that of the subject-specific one. (I know what I mean, can't think of a better way to put it). A few major websites decided he was worth covering, so I guess this is one of those cases. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

M151
Why do you deem the link to the museum's M151 page inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hichary (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * External links, as a rule of thumb, are only really valid when they are for official websites for a given subject - and a museum doesn't count, I'm afraid.
 * At least one of those links looked like a useful site which expanded on the article's material...which is to say, something that might justify an exception to a loose, general rule. Anmccaff (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps; I will admit to having a fairly strict view on the EL policy. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

iOS 8
I am wondering why you rolled back my improvments on the ios 8 article. IamQuack23 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very simple; they weren't improvements, nor were they sourced. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift explaination — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamQuack23 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Emily Schooley
It kind of seems like this article will clearly never go away. I am all for it staying if it were able to pass WP:GNG but I still don't think it would. The editor is trying to start it back up and has contacted me to review it before he posts it. However, I think he is going to run right back into the same problem because a lot of the sources he cited are from blogs and self created promotional pages. I even removed Imdb pages and wikipedia pages he had used for sources. So you may want to go and look at it here> and see whats transpiring. Otherwise we are going to be in another WP:AfD fight. --Canyouhearmenow 12:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree; there's simply no notability there in that article. Plenty of non-notable roles being bombarded there in order to suggest notability, but she's done nothing beyond a few cameos in minor films. All of the sources are still local, unreliable, primary, blogs, or a mixture of those. And Sadfatandalone has made it worse, with several pieces of trivia and biased commentary being added solely in order to try and add a few more references (and even then, one or two bits are unsourced anyway). That user clearly isn't legitimate, as a look at the history reminds me that their very first edit was to file an SPI. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. I reviewed it and on the talk page I informed them that the sources were scant and I even had to remove several such as wikipedia articles themselves. I fear that this user is trying to bully this article back onto the mainframe in an effort to make us have to WP:AfD it yet again. How many times does this one article need to be deleted? --Canyouhearmenow 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if it does end up in mainspace again, and it does get deleted again, then we can request that the page be SALTed, which will prevent it from being recreated. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

DeltaWing
Hi,

Thank you for your comments. I completely respect the site's policies.

The changes I made were not promotional but rather facts related to a relevant intellectual property lawsuit between DeltaWing Project 56 and Nissan. I cited a publicly available case document that was obtained from the Jackson County, Ga. Superior Court clerk. I stated the facts exactly as printed in this document. I thought it was needed because the most recent case update the entry is citing dates back to 2013/early 2014.

These facts are reported here: http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1503-panoz-vs-nissan-lawsuit-overshadows-deltawing-road-car-plan/

I suggest for the sake of accuracy the DeltaWing and Nissan ZEOD entries should include this new evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafrarum (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be included... but the way you wrote it was either a copyvio of the source (I haven't checked), or so far from appropriately written that it isn't funny, I'm afraid. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

e60 page edits
Hey. Earlier today I undid a few of your edits to the BMW e60 page. I see you have changed the page back. Honestly, I'm not well educated in editing wiki pages, but I'm not sure why you have insisted that material requires deletion. Its not all duplicate material, so now most of the data for 2003 to 2005 models is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.155.54 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * I explained in my edit summary. The primary issue here is that most of the information is a textbook violation of WP:NOTSTATS; detailed information on things like turning circles, gearboxes, differential ratios etcetera have no place on Wikipedia, as this is not a statistics site. Very few people are actually going to come to Wikipedia for that sort of thing. It was all completely unsourced, so for all anyone knows, it could've been totally made up. All of the engine details I removed there were already in the other tables in that article - so yes, there was duplication. Engine details are a little more acceptable because, generally, a lot more articles have them, and your average non-tech reader (which is what Wikipedia caters for) will be able to understand things like power output and capacity, whereas gear ratios and the like are meaningless to them. Long story short; I removed 27kB of excessively detailed and totally unsourced information. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Jim Al-Khalili dvds
Can you explain please why it is acceptable to list Jim's books on Wikipedia but not his dvds, even by name without a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.98.31 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No sources were provided for the existence of any of those DVDs. The books are all referenced with either ISBNs or links. Same goes for the TV programmes. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

So exactly what source is acceptable for you? A link to the manufacturer's website, or is that spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.98.31 (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A link to the manufacturer's site would be fine, yes, assuming it was a direct link for each DVD. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Azad Hind Bank
Hello Lukeno94. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Azad Hind Bank, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''This is a rather complex matter. "Azad Hind" was a "government in exile" set up in Japanese-occupied Singpapore. "Netaji" himself was a very complex person in both personality and political alliances... But in short, not a WP:A7 candidate.''' Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was, however, still a G11 candidate as being pure promotional fluff (for what little was there), and it had been previously deleted under CSD:A7 - for an article that I would expect was identical. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

List of converts to Islam from Christianity
Dear Luke. I hope you are well. Can you please look at List of converts to Islam from Christianity. One editor, User:Xtremedood, adds excessive bio details for a Wikipedia list (which I guess I could live with), but, far worse, adds non-notable people and tries to claim that the website http://www.muslimconverts.com/ is a reliable source for them. I don't want to violate edit-war or 3-revert policies. I'd love your opinion or input. Thanks and regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * GeorgeCustersSabre, it is not excess. Similar articles have much longer data. The information is sourced and relevant to the personality. Xtremedood (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Luke to have any discussion on your talk page. My explanation is at the talk page of the converts list page. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Both of you need to leave it as it is for now, and engage in a discussion on the talk page. I personally don't see why the extra information is needed in this case, particularly compared to most entries in the article. Smaller articles can also go into more detail. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you Luke. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism with speculative fixtures
Hi Lukeno94. Perhaps i should have posted here rather than pinging you from the talk page. not sure what the protocols are. I have been involved last year and when the asian cup was on, with reverting edits from some other/same vandal whos been adding speculative fixtures to 2015 Australia national soccer team season. The more frerquently one reverts them, the more it seems to encourage that person to do it again. However, this particular one was a real event ! Westfield Matildas to host Vietnam in farewell match. I had been thinking for some time the age needed the last couple of years of results/fixtures similar to the men's team page, and now that I have found the results already generated at another couple of articles, i have added links to the Recent_Results_and_fixtures section. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

not Wikipedia related
Luke, several months back I had occasion to message you here, regarding Wikipedia. I was wondering if I could ask you a couple of questions about English football as well as the upcoming election. If you are willing to answer a couple of questions, let me know if it would be okay here or at Facebook. Thanks for your consideration, Freddiem (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's a little too off topic for me. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a Blues fan, you might have lost interest in football anyway Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  13:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No real reason for me to lose interest in football - if you'd said we'd finish tenth in November, after we'd lost 8-0 to Bournemouth and had won two home games in 12 months+... I'd have laughed. Rowett is a bloody magician. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Remembering that I'm just another dolt from the States, and since you mentioned Bournemouth, I will go ahead and ask my "Premier" question only. Remembering that I know nothing about any possible internecine feuds between your hometown Poole and Bournemouth next door, and I know that you have been away at university, and that you are a fan of Birmingham City; what are your feelings and the general reaction in Poole regarding Bournemouth taking the Championship title? Thanks for your forbearance. Freddiem (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was born in Poole, but I haven't lived there for about 18 years; so I would have absolutely no idea. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like me, my family left my place of birth before I started school. But my grandparents still lived there and we often visited. Anyway, the Bournemouth story is amazing. Only a 12,000 seat stadium, truly a minnow of minnows. I wonder how long they will last in the top flight? :) Freddiem (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Made up date in ref?
Hi Luke, I'm confused about one tiny aspect of this edit. The source here seems to support the edit with "By Alex Fletcher Tuesday, Mar 12 2013, 14:41 GMT. Am I misinterpreting your summary? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are. That was in relation to the 100 Greatest TV Shows thing, where I could see no evidence of a date whatsoever. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you're wondering quite why I'm so flippant with that IP; it's because, over the last month or so, and with a wide range of IPs over at least two (large) ranges, they've been making a bunch of unsourced changes (particularly to dates), adding their own commentary into articles, and persistently violate the MOS, across a wide range of TV articles and automotive ones. But this is mixed in with some edits that are clearly constructive, and some parts of edits that are. The location of this IP seems to be all over the place as well; sometimes it's London, sometimes it's Oldham, and sometimes it's Ireland... various other places as well, and various ISPs (BT, Virgin, etc). But it is very clearly the same person behind the edits. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's go get some sticks and whip his legs! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting strategy :P in reality though, there's very little I can do other than follow them around and clean up after them. They edit a lot of articles, different ones most of the time, and they have such a wide range of IPs (albeit ones that are recognizable) that range blocks aren't going to work. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't make any difference to my opinion whatsoever, particularly when I find that entire thread to be based on shaky ground (they cite the Telegraph as being an example of the flaw, when it's a clear 2:1 majority) and my !vote was based on my experiences as a non-American, not just based on Google. I will note my disgust at the desperation of the Oppose side in attempting to take any means necessary to discredit the support voters and their reasonings. I agree with Softlavender - those numbers are flawed as they're way too small. Some of those editors need to realize that the US is not the entire world. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Paw Patrol Voice Cast
The voice cast section may not be linked to something but at least it goes by what's said in the show's end credits. 172.56.17.229 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For which zero evidence has been presented. Come on, if it's this easy to find a reliable (not IMDB) source, then please just cite it. Otherwise, it stays out. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Minnie Mouse
it is too, because when i looked in there, it said she started voicing her in 1987, she first voiced her in "Disney's DTV" in 1987. FrozenFan2 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Sure thing, I'll do the best i can to find one, and I'm sorry if I got all mad, I apologize. FrozenFan2 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, regardless of if it is "right" or not in this instance. If you can cite an official Disney source for her taking up the role in 1987, then by all means reinstate the change. If you can't, then please refrain from doing so. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do, it will bring an end to the edit war. No problem, and thanks for reacting in the correct manner - I understand it can be frustrating as a new editor when you have your edits reverted due to a simple lack of knowledge of how things are done :) I hope you enjoy your time here! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

On 'Flag Icons' in Tables
Luke, I have no interest in reverting your removal of the flag icons from the tables at Jetix, as I think it is really debatable as to whether they added anything to an article like that. However, the use of flag icons is allowed in tables – the relevant portion of MOS:FLAG (specifically in WP:WORDPRECEDENCE) states: In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Now, you can debate whether the use of flag icons at Jetix falls under that or not. But, in general, the use of flag icons in situations such as in tables in articles is allowed. Just thought you should know... --IJBall (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't see how that particular passage of text is satisfied personally, but I also see how someone could claim it to be. For me, the biggest reason to remove is that some things obviously can't have flags. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD
If you an admin, can you do something about this user please, he keeps on undoing my edits, all I'm just doing is keeping the article all sourced out and keeping them the way they are. he won't leave my edits alone, I've been trying to tell him they are already sourced out in the article, can you please get him to stop so I can edit in peace please FrozenFan2 (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And I didn't even do anything wrong either. FrozenFan2 (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ping so that they're fully aware of this discussion (it's only fair, I'm sure you'll agree). I personally agree that they're going a little too far in some cases with the reverting (Steve Kynman being one example in my opinion - a wholesale revert was a bit unfair there), however there are some obvious issues with your edits. For example, introduced a duplicated word (look a little later on in the sentence). Also, I think this edit summary is a pretty good explanation of what's going on; apparently, we're not supposed to use the fields mentioned there, and I believe this is the issue Marnette has with most of your edits. You should also read WP:OVERLINK, as mentioned in another edit summary; we do not generally link to nationalities any more. Whilst it is true that there are some articles that have links to nationalities, and some that have the fields you added, these are old articles that have not been cleaned up yet. Does this help? :)  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it does, I don't want an edit war to start happening. I just want him to leave me alone, I even told him three times that it's source out in the article, on the Wayne Allwine page, and I'm just trying to update articles and make them a lot better. FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the ping L. I have been trying to leave links to the relevant policies and guidelines in both my edit summaries and on this editors talk page. I do not know whether they are being read or not. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The second post here shows that the information about how to use the fields in the person infobox is being ignored. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand both of your positions. Marnette, it would probably have been best to have hand-written a message on FrozenFan's talkpage, rather than using a template with appended comments; a quick look at this user's (brief) history shows that they do know how to use talkpages and how to discuss. It is something I should do more often myself. FrozenFan, I appreciate that you are genuinely trying to improve the articles, and I doubt Marnette thinks that you're trying to make them worse; but Marnette is an experienced editor, so when they revert you with well-explained reasons, you really should read them carefully instead of just re-reverting. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I do get it, and I already said that to him that I do get it. But he's still not listening to me..... FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And I am providing sources for articles too, i can't understand why he won't listen to me.... FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, removing things from their talk page was a little silly - please don't do that again. It seems like both of you are partially paying attention to what the other writes. FrozenFan, could you please not add in the children into the infobox? Also, whilst Marnette is being formal, they are not being abusive - they're just getting a little frustrated as they feel you're not reading their message. Could you please list the sources you used here? IMDB is not reliable, as it is user-generated, and I know that was one issue that Marnette had. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind then...... FrozenFan2 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to help, but I need to see whether the issue is with the sources you've used being unreliable, or if Marnette simply missed them. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Trouble
I think it's best I shouldn't edit anymore, because I've been doing the best I can to put a source for the Wayne Allwine article like what user:MarnetteD told me to do. But it still wasn't good enough, he even told me not to reply to his talk page again, I've been doing the best I can here but it's just not good enough. FrozenFan2 (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Exactly, that's the source I provided in the article, http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-wayne-allwine21-2009may21-story.html. It even shows the names of his kids and stuff. FrozenFan2 (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......, now I understand now. That's why he keeps removing them. Because they don't have there own articles and all that other stuff you said too. I actually do get it now. FrozenFan2 (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Thanks, also, can you let him know I understand now for what he did and I'm sorry too, because I'm just a little nervous for reply to his talk page again. I don't want him to still be mad at me. FrozenFan2 (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case. I think Marnette just got too frustrated with what they perceived as you not listening. I would say that it may be best to find another topic to work on for a while. For what it's worth, that LA Times source was fine; it definitely satisfies the reliable source guidelines. Try to stick to simple things for a while, like cleaning up grammar and spelling errors, and reverting obvious vandalism or factual errors from articles. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that you did keep putting in that information into the infobox, even after we'd both said that it wasn't what we're supposed to do here any more, which is probably why Marnette got frustrated. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I can explain, somewhat, the issue here. Marnette's reference to the children being non-notable is that they don't have articles of their own, and, as of right now, they wouldn't justify articles of their own. When we use that field in infoboxes, it is used solely for the notable relatives of that person (in that field's case, the notable children.) So, even though you can reliably source the information on them, Wikipedia's editors have decided to form the guideline that we don't include children when they don't have articles of their own. This goes for other family members, by the way, although it is not uncommon to see spouses listed even when they don't have their own article. Now, as to the notable_roles and awards fields in the infobox, as Marnette explained, they have been deprecated - in case you aren't aware of what this means, it means that we no longer add those fields into articles; they remain there for the older articles that had the information added years ago. At some point, it will probably be removed completely from the infobox. It's also worth noting that you did not directly source any of the other fields, although in this case, that wouldn't have made any difference. Does this help, and do you understand where you went wrong now? :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear! :) I thought it might be the case that you hadn't realize what Marnette meant when they said non-notable - the problem is that we experience Wikipedia editors tend to forget that it may not mean much to a newbie. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll ping again, although I would expect them to have been following this discussion at least to some degree. :)  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have only just gotten on-WikiP today. I am glad that things are becoming clear for FF2 and I thank you Luke for all of the time and effort that you have taken in this situation. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly Lukeno94 FF2 began restoring the notable roles fields tonight in spite of you explaining things so well in your earlier post. I do hope that the editor will heed you words in any future editing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's quite disappointing. Unfortunately, I'm not going to have the time, energy, motivation or level-headedness for the next couple of weeks to try and explain things. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were suppose to be there, my mistake, don't worry everyone makes mistakes. I just made a mistake. I completely, completely, completely, completely, understand. I'm trying so hard not to get blocked from the wiki, I came here on the wiki because I want to update articles and make them a lot better for everyone, doesn't anyone understand that? FrozenFan2 (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know his awards are not suppose to be back in there either, I didn't know that, and I apologize, I thought just his kids are not suppose to be in there is what i thought. FrozenFan2 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Userspace link
I'd say this ought to solve that problem: -- Jac 16888 Talk 18:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, although knowing this IP, they'll probably ignore that and continue to link to it. I literally don't know what I can do about them; they hop IPs like nobody's business, as well as ISPs and even countries! Trying to get them to follow policy is like pulling teeth, and complaining about references in addition to a laundry list of other issues will see the entire edit reinstated with a source, regardless of how many other issues there were, and how many changes they've made are still unreferenced... or even in contradiction to a reference. And no one will block them because they're not solely a vandal, they just cause a huge mess due to their incompetence. And then I lose track of the IP for a couple of days as it hops to articles I haven't clocked yet... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome messages by... you
Hi, Luke! I thought I should let you know about 188.31.29.36's prank. He is leaving inappropriate messages on user talk pages (mine included) – and he is doing it with your signature. I came close to asking you for an explanation :D Surtsicna (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's a new one... not seen anyone do that before with my signature on it. I wonder who that IP is... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The photograph of the man urinating is quite original too. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is very weird. The sad thing is that the IP actually put a little bit of time and effort into that troll! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Toy Story 3
I'm the one that made that edit by mistake, please don't take it seriously. I was editing something and I restored that edit but accident. FrozenFan2 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one that Removed "The Monkey" in the first place, I restored it by mistake. I even already started a discussion on the talk page about that character too. FrozenFan2 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Break
Right now, I need a break from MarnetteD. I think it's best I shouldn't reply and leave talk messages to him anymore. Because, he's not getting along with me that well, I did admit that I did make some mistakes when I'm on here, like this edit here. I admit that I did made that edit there, I don't like lying at all, I alway's want to tell the truth all the time. I now do admit I made that edit there, because the reason was, I thought the message I saw on there was abusive and mean at first. That's why I removed it, but now I learned now not to removed article talk page messages, I learned that now. I'm not trying to ignore rules either, that's what MarnetteD thought?, but right now, I just need a break, I just don't undestand why were not getting along with each other, I've been trying to be nice and kind to him and all other stuff, but I just doesn't work out that well. I really hope you understand Lukeno94. I knew I made mistakes in the past, but I just need a break for right now and from MarnetteD, I've even been doing my best to follow the rules too on the wiki, I don't understand why he won't get along with me... =( FrozenFan2 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Ya, I do admit that my edits are a little sloppy, that's why I discuss them on article talk pages for information, MarnetteD keeps saying that my edit are disruptive and stuff, MarnetteD just won't get along with me too, he told not to reply to him ever again. I've been trying really really hard of being nice to him and other stuff, I never said any mean threats to him, I guess me and him will never get along, he still won't listen to me. I've even been telling him "I'm sorry" over 10 or more times already in a nice way. He's putting me down really badly.... FrozenFan2 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be for the best to take a bit of a break. I think you need to just take a little more time and a little more care with your edits, because some of them have been a little sloppy at times. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I trust you Luken094, because I hope you can understand what I'm going through. FrozenFan2 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Then please leave them alone and stop posting on their talk page as they asked. Thank you and have a nice day. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Repel All Boarders   ‖ 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply
Your right, Lukeno94. It's best I should take a break from the wiki for a while, because of all this stress that's been happening to me. I don't know how long I'm going to be gone. But it's best to be safe and sorry for me. I'm telling you this because I know I can trust you, and you do understand me. FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Players released
Their release was officially announced by the club's website, they'll not return to the club and they will sign for outher clubs in the meantime. You're removing 100% correct references from the storyline, aside from being the only one reverting correct additions. If an official website announces it, how can you contest it?

There's no absolute consensus over the subject, if you enter at WT:FOOTY and search "release" you'll see this. Cheers, MYS  77  ✉ 15:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, standard practise has been to do things the way I changed to for a LONG time. Whether there is explicit consensus from a debate is, in fact, irrelevant, because the consensus is whatever is most commonly followed in editing anyway. How can I contest it? Because of the numerous times players have been "released", only to suddenly sign a new deal before they even leave the club, or almost straight after they left (as was the case with Stuart Taylor (footballer, born 1980) at Manchester City, for example). It's also not factually inaccurate to say they're still contracted to a club when, well, they're still contracted at a club - but it is factually inaccurate to say that they have no club whilst their contract is still running down. Changing things to say they will be released - which is precisely what I did - is making the timeline more accurate and factually correct, not the opposite. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if this consensus was reached, removing correct references from the page (as you did with all my edits), is wrong. MYS  77  ✉ 15:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show me exactly where I removed a reference. You can't, and the reason why is simple; I didn't. Yes, I re-wrote the passage of text which explained that the players were being released, but I left the references in place without touching them. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't note that one. Cheers, MYS  77  ✉ 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Indexing RFC
Please do not remove noindex from the misplaced RFCs. RFCs are not to be indexed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt (also http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11261). Some RFC are not under /wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/ evading the indexing prohibition. Otherwise I will have to file a new bug in Wikimedia's Bugzilla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.215.27.91 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not indexed... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't they? https://archive.is/L9VGy#selection-973.22-973.36 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.215.27.91 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Doni
Why did you reverted? --Kiwi (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

?
I havent done anything wrong so get your facts right before accusing editors TeaLover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 11:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You made the factually inaccurate change that Scott Sinclair was no longer a Manchester City player. Until the 9th of June, he remains a Manchester City player due to the way the transfer window works. And you can't claim you didn't know that because you removed the comments in the article that specifically told you! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tough I havent done anything wrong so there <b style="font-family:tahoma"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 11:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It requires a special form of incompetence to say that, given how obviously wrong you are... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey bro
I just logged back in after a short vacation from the Internet...what's happening? I've noticed you active mediating disputes here and there, but is there anything particularly of note? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. Some disputes I've mediated fairly successfully, other times I've gotten annoyed with people and tried to rip their internet heads off. Nothing much ever changes here :p Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (Fallout narrator voice): Wikipedia...never changes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want an example of just how little changes... we've got more socks on a certain Indian university page and related pages... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That actually does have me interested...would it be alright of me to ask where this is going down? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The same place we ran into Msoamu, Aligarh Muslim University - more socks posting in probable copyvio content taken straight from the university's site, and creating articles on barely-notable/non-notable student societies and such with massive attempts at ref bombing to try and make things look notable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sega on WT:VG
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&curid=6177064&diff=663404667&oldid=663404569 That edit summary] was inappropriate. Cool it. If you're getting that angry about someone (either mistakenly or deliberately) changing your comments, maybe you should consider disengaging from that topic/user and let other editors handle it. --Izno (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How is it too excessive?
I was just updating the Wii section of this page since it sounded too quiet. Other consoles on the page like the NES, SNES, N64, and GameCube have games listed in their section. I was trying to contribute to the page.
 * Never mind. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Aligarh Muslim University Alumni
I would have thought that pretty straightforward and non-controversial. If you are using Windows you could redo all the people to the small a and then redirect the category. I'd do it but I'm using my laptop at work and it only has Linux. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'd agree with you... but given the behaviour of the users in question (who appear to be meats, not socks), I want to make sure that I have some kind of consensus to back me up. If the move request clearly lands in my favour, then there is clear evidence to whoever is behind the accounts that the move isn't appropriate, and they either change their ways (highly unlikely) or cause more disruption and then can be dealt with (although, quite frankly, COI blocks with the helping hand of meatpuppetry would probably apply) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion
You have nominated Aligarh Muslim University Students' Union, Filmsaaz, Law Society, Aligarh Muslim University, University Film Club, Aligarh Muslim University for deletion without going to the merit of the pages.

Aligarh Muslim University Students Union is a statutory body under an Act passed by Indian Parliament. It is more than hundred years old. First life member was Mahatma Gandhi. You have cited reason that its a PR stunt is unfounded for!!!

Filmsaaz is in ninth year now and has attracted international personalities so far. It has been already mentioned at IMDB website which you undermined.

Law Society is the oldest society at the university. The society is more than hundred years now. One of the Indian Governor was the secretary of the society way back in 1953 which gives it a legitimacy, but you ignored this fact and saying again this is an PR stunt.

University Film Club, has completed more than 35 years and has a good standing.

Only person who have closely associated with all this could know the minute details and its importance. Persons seating miles away cant understand a single bit.Arifjwadder (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are all doubtless excellent qualities; but they will not justify an article unless backed by reliable, secondary, independent sources. BTW, you might also wish to consider assuming the inherent good faith of other editors, and perhaps also mull over whether the desire for competence is only one way... <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  19:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A very valid reply, and it's interesting to see just how much the two users involved quack more and more with every edit. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)