User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 2

ANI moved.
Hi Lukeno94. Just letting you know that as the ANI of User:NickCochrane is primarily a NPOV issue, I have moved the ANI discussion to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Claim of "film is superior to digital video" opinion as fact POV. --Oakshade (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I self-reverted and moved it back to the ANI board you started it at. It actually is an incident reporting and it wasn't my place to move an ANI case someone else started.--Oakshade (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have minded if the NPOV noticeboard was a more appropriate location; I was not actually aware of it's existence! *doh* Lukeno94 (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to move it to the NPOV board, feel free to. It's your case. --Oakshade (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it where it is, it's as much an incident as NPOV :) Lukeno94 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My overly long ANI report
Hey, this is regarding that ANI report I filed [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785|here]. It got a bit long and I'm sorry for bringing this up again, but I need advice. User:Msoamu attacked me again here, User:Saqibsandhu here and attacked both of us here. Additionally, he is refusing to discuss content on Talk:Barelvi; instead, he's just bringing edits of mine on other pages and attacking me personally like here, here and here. He's not throwing around names anymore but he's reverting any attempts by any other editors on these articles and refusing to engage in discussion about the actual content. Do you know what I can do at this point? The articles have become un-editable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm not an admin, so I suggest you contact one of them about de-archiving the AN/I report, or more probably, how to proceed with a new one. The first AN/I diff is definitely a personal attack: "1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi." is a clear attack. I would not consider the second one to be, merely Msoamu defending his position in an aggressive manner (which is similar, but not quite the same thing). I'm not sure whether the third diff is a personal attack; it's borderline, but probably not. He's accused you of a COI, not anything more. I was not convinced that there were any real attacks in the remaining 3 diffs. Below, I will state what I think of the editing on the articles:
 * Barelvi. User:GorgeCustersSabre would appear to agree with you that Msoamu has removed less-positive content from the article:. One thing you may not have realized is that way back in 2006 (!) Msoamu was warned about re-writing the article from his point of view by User:Firien:.
 * Wahabi. User:Dawn Bard appears to agree that Msoamu is not being constructive, and has made poorly-sourced additions. A quick look at one of his edits would lead me to agree with this - providing a forum as a reference for a religious group being home to extremism is clearly not on.
 * His talk page. I see you warned this user about this way back in 2007, so it's clear that this has been going on for a very long time between you two editors.
 * Normally, I would suggest that you stepped back from the topic and left the edit war, particularly the Barelvi article. However, in this case, two separate editors agree with your contributions, and not Msoamu's, and some of Msoamu's additions are borderline vandalism. I would suggest you request full-protection for both articles for a short time, to prevent the edit war continuing, and that you write a new, better AN/I with the help of an admin - as Msoamu has been at this for nearly 7 years, it has to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow...this is great advice and I think I've made a mistake by not checking back here. I already opened several discussions at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, though in retrospect what you've said here is balanced, moderate and would have been a better route. Even though you're not an admin, your advice has been taken to heart. Judging by the cases I opened at the edit warring noticeboard, what do you think I should do next? Have I gone about it in a wrong way? MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have. You've opened way too many separate cases there, you should merge them into one. In terms of layout, they seem about right. Glad I could help :) Lukeno94 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem shy to tell me about the points on which you feel I was wrong, which is a good thing; I must be fair. With that in mind, could I convince you...to...possibly help mediate the discussion on Talk:Barelvi once Msoamu returns? I'd like to get as much outside input as possible, and as you've made it clear you won't take sides but have still taken the time to check out the issue, it seems like it wouldn't hurt to ask. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd already left a message on Msoamu's talk page about him telling his side of the story, so I'm happy to try and help ease the tension. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

AFD tags
Thanks for cleaning up the AFD tags on the articles, I got distracted reading another tab and it slipped my mind. James086 Talk 13:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it :) I also expanded the article on the racing driver - it should now be a perfectly valid stub, as he raced in the Japanese Super GT as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jac 16888 Talk 23:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually use the move function, but it wouldn't let me as a page already existed this time (even though I blanked it). Guess in future I'll get an admin to do it so I don't mess things up! Lukeno94 (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that has fixed up what he can here, although I'm not certain that everything was rescued. For future ref, WP:RM is the way to go. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Its because the target already existed, you needed to use Db-move. (Although to be fair I messed up a bit when I fixed it anyway, didn't finish the job)-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank You
Kindly have a look here .Msoamu (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, that doesn't really support your case, and I believe I asked you to stop commenting on his previous edits and stick to the task in hand: forming a consensus on what should be present in the Barelvi article, and what should not. :) Lukeno94 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Msoamu is at it again here, if you're interested. It made me "lol" as I'm not sure if a defense on my part is even necessary. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A question
Could you tell me please, there is something i don't understand. Wp:medrs states the the sources has to be no older than 5 years old. So i open drn about it. However, solely because more active editors would like it to be included, they disregard wp:medrs. So my question is, is it legitimate? And what can be done about it? Also, a side note, the drn got archived when i was sick for a week. How its possible to put it back? Ryanspir (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As much as I'd like to help, I'm not the best guy to talk to about the reliability of sources - I simply lack the knowledge and insight to make decisions on anything that is borderline. As to getting the DRN de-archived, you need to speak to one of the admins who hangs out over there. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
Could you please suggest whom i can ask regarding the first question? Ryanspir (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably the same admin you talk to about the DRN de-archiving. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

complains
Thanks. Another small thing, there is another editor who is complaining that most of his contributions are reversed, making editing unwelcoming for him. Thats what i also felt and i second him. Ryanspir (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edits are usually reverted for valid reasons. Could you stop making a new section on my talk page every time you comment, and please discuss your situation with an admin, whom actually will know how to help you? Lukeno94 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case (JoshuSasori)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously you aren't under investigation yourself. Just I mentioned your name in my comment and I figured I should let you know. If you want to post a comment I'm sure it would be welcome! elvenscout742 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When I saw the first bit, I got very confused, I'm glad to know I'm not under investigation (my views on sockpuppeters are probably fairly well known now...) Luke no 94  (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"fairly fluent"
Not only am I a native speaker of American English descended from Clan MacTavish, but I also have an MA in English. Please allow me to nurture my bruised ego for a while... MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC) P.S. In terms of functionality, this is disclosure of at least one area where I can claim to be an expert. It's relevant both to the current ANI case and to some content issues I try to address both on Islam-related articles and elsewhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I say fairly fluent because I've seen you make a handful of errors (only a handful), and your name didn't imply to me that you were a native of any English-speaking country. No offence was meant, I assure you. :) Luke no 94  (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a solution may have been found at the ANI thread. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:JoshuSasori
Thank you so much for you kind (and continued) support on the issue. Honestly though at this moment I'm more concerned with the fact that his bffs and undying fans continue to harass me but wrap their harassment up in "assume good faith" talk: apparently an obscenity-laden rant, a couple of real-world threats, obvious WP:OWN issues and so on are not enough, and "it takes two to tango". And going to administrators' talk pages to badmouth me for not "assuming good faith" is also acceptable... elvenscout742 (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any idea how to deal with that? I think I may have dealt with it poorly in the short term... elvenscout742 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly understandable reaction, and much closer to being polite than the tirade they'd get from me if I was undergoing such attacks. If there's one group of "users" I can't stand, it's those who maliciously sockpuppet/meatpuppet. The latter is cowardly, the former shows a total lack of respect for anyone. Luke no 94  (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Top Gear (series 19), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amy MacDonald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sufi-Salafi relations
There were recent developments at Articles for deletion/Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism. I'd like to request a review on your part (doesn't entail you needing to change your vote, I just think a review is in order). MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: Windows 7, VirtualPC, and RAM decisions
Lukeno94,

Thanks for your response over at the Computing Refdesk. If you don't recommend Dell, what do you recommend? Is it a specific company, or do you buy all of your parts individually? Thanks! -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I build my computers myself, but I appreciate that not everyone has the tech knowledge to do such a thing. I'd suggest you make a list of the things you need the computer to be able to do, those that you'd like it to do, and things it doesn't need to do, then work out your budget. After that, read a few professional reviews to get an idea of what computer can do what, then read reviews on the support different companies provide. Draw a list of the companies that seem good, then look at what offers they've got on machines that fit your budget - also look at reputable places like Amazon for deals there. I would note that it's getting very hard to find a good Windows 7 PC from one of the "big" OEM manufacturers, but you can buy some machines without an OS, and then buy a copy of Windows 7 to put on there. Luke no 94  (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What caused the cite errors that you later fixed
This change removed a bunch of references to the items that were causing the problems; removing the references was the right thing to do, as they weren't actually being used any more, as they were only being used in the table entries you removed. Guy Harris (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Escalation
Hey man. Things have been escalated by Msoamu, Shabiha and Hassanfarooqi during the last six hours or so. I am now clearly being accused of belonging to a "terrorist organization," in addition to still constantly being ascribed to ideologies (namely Salafism and Wahhabism) which I have expressly said I don't agree with and fear personal/professional repercussions should my IP address ever be tied to such accusations. The timing of all these accusations really leads me to believe that this is not only coordinated among them, but specifically in reaction to my personal concerns. I would really like something done about this as soon as possible, whatever it is. I don't want to feel that I am putting myself at risk simply by logging in to Wikipedia. Some of the info is at WP:ANI. As a disclosure, I am also posting this appeal to other respected editors who were involved - I feel this is a time-sensitive issue and want to increase the chances of someone intervening as soon as possible. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi Lukeno94, your comment over at the ANI case involving me and Wee had me baffled so I thought I should stop by. You asked for a mere slap on the wrist for Wee but and indefinite block for me (!). Could I ask you what prompted you to call for such unbalanced sanctions? I assume it is because you believe I am the same user who got blocked a year ago (the one Wee accuses me of being a sock puppet of). What precisely do you feel would be enough so that I 100% clear that sock puppetry charge that Wee has been throwing at me for a year now? I'd urge you to put yourself in my position and think what you would be prepared to do to handle such an accusation. I've stated that I will do anything to make that accusations stop. If I were just a sock puppet of a blocked editor, why would I go through so much trouble revealing my RLI when I could just let that account get blocked and open a new one? Why do you think I fought tooth and nails for over a month after my account got blocked a year ago to the extent of agreeing to give away my right to anonymity, when I could've just opened another "sock" and continue editing? The "behavioral" evidence is basically my writing style. I'm sorry if it's similar to that of another user, I can't change it. What's more telling about a user's behavior is what it edits on WP. As far as I'm aware that blocked user limited itself to Falkland related articles (this is just what I can gather from Wee's comments) while I've clearly proven my interest and knowledge in substantially different areas. Now, if somebody here can tell me that editor used to also contribute to physics/astronomy articles then I'll retire from WP myself because that would be too much of a coincidence. Why is only the way I type and how I edit my comments being taken into account and not what I actually create in WP? Anyway, this got to be a lot longer than I aimed for and I'm sorry for that. I'm just a bit tired of having to defend myself of not being another person. Just think for a second how bizarre that can be. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just the area of editing. It's the edit summaries and the style of editing, the language used, and the attitude towards other users. I'm not going to get into a discussion about why you did X to "prove your innocence", so to speak, because some people go to desperate measures to do such things. The indef is actually as much to do with your continued personal attacks, BEYOND WCP, despite the fact you've been warned far too often, have a previous block for this offence, and indeed your sock-unblock specifically stated that you need to behave better - as far as I can determine, you haven't. Luke no 94  (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've responded in the ANI report. Really, your aggressiveness towards me has me baffled. Asking than an editor be blocked indefinitely is a serious issue and you seem to have some of the facts mixed up. It is Wee who has a history of aggravating other editors, not me. It is Wee who has already been topic banned for pretty much the same behavior he displays now at the talk page of the article where this started, not me. Anyway, you seem to have made up your mind about me already so I feel there's not much I can say anymore. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A tremendous effort

 * Thanks, I just wish that I'd sorted the situation for good. Luke no 94  (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a bug
Hey, Lukeno! This might be stuff you already know, so feel free to ignore it, but: I happened across your note on User talk:You Can Act Like A Man. I'm just dropping in to say that I don't think that's a bug; I think it's intended behavior. Basically, any time you wikilink to the same page you're on, the link is inactive, and instead the text is bolded. Like this:  becomes User talk:Lukeno94. I think the default signature gets around this by linking to the #top (so User talk:Lukeno94), which doesn't count as the same page, but custom signatures don't always. It's useful for things like navboxes, where you can tell at a glance which page in the navbox you're on, but it does cause some confusion for user sigs. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your explanation makes perfect sense, I'd noticed the text being made bold on my talk page, it doesn't seem to always work for others though - and is a total fail when someone's whole sig is bold anyway! Luke no 94  (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried that trick, it didn't work, so I don't know how the default sig does it! Luke no 94  (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Or... maybe it does. Fail. :D Luke no 94  (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The default sig doesn't include the  fragment; I notice that yours now does so. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure how the default sig works, but my bodgejob did what I wanted :) Luke no 94  (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We got some action
Hey man. I don't know if you're still interested (I totally understand if you're not), but there's a new editor, User:Child Star Grown Up, posting some weird things on the Barelvi page. Nothing that would constitute POV-pushing, but he's adding information about the most random beliefs of Barelvis and using what seems to be a Barelvi website, which in this case is a primary source; a secondary source would be needed to support the notability of a particular belief, like Arun Shourie with the beard issue. It's not like he's doing anything wrong per se, but he has been egging on Msoamu and taunting another Barelvi editor for not being Barelvi enough. Given that another Barelvi editor popped up recently in addition to a bunch of IPs, I think there's reason to fear that a storm brewing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Old news, MezzoMezzo my friend. Sockpuppet investigations/Trust on ALLAH - feel free to go and post your experiences there. Luke no 94  (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Man, I'm like way behind. I added some details there in the latter part of my comments. Yes, unfortunately, I seem unable to leave brief comments. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd redact the comments about Msoamu and Shabiha - you've got no evidence of this, and if there is any link, the CheckUser will probably find them. Without evidence, you run the risk of being blocked. Luke no 94  (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Zakwp is a sock of someone, but not of these - his English is far better than Shabiha, Msoamu, or any of those I mentioned in the SPI. Luke no 94  (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By redact, do you mean posting another comment asking that my initial comment be ignored, or should I edit my original post and delete that material? I can't find an exact guideline regarding how someone takes back comments on an SPI. You're right upon review of my suspicion, though; it's more of a stretch compared to your own comments, and also pulls things a bit off track. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Either strike it using  tags, or remove it completely. Don't remove the whole comment, just refactor it so you aren't making allegations of which you have no evidence for. As I noted, I highly doubt two of your three suspects are these users, and doubt the third.  Luke no 94  (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience and constant advising. Guys like you are a benefit to your peers, believe me. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, you haven't rubbed me up the wrong way (figuratively speaking), so I'm more than happy to help. :) Luke no 94  (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)