User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 8

GA nomination of Audi V8
Your GA nomination has been put on hold for seven days for issues in the article. Please see the review page.Suri 100 (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Hello, Lukeno94. I wonder if you can help me by explaining what you mean by this edit summary. You may be right in saying that Li3939108 "know[s] damn well why that is vandalism", but it is not obvious to me why it is. The source does, on the face of it, seem to support the substance of the edit. (I am relying on a couple of machine translations of the source, but the essential substance of the edit seems to be there.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It most definitely doesn't (note: I'm also using a machine translation). It supports the statement about her university place being fake. "Her thesis cannot be found in archives and generally students majoring in Chinese literature would do research on literature or linguistics, rather than societies." is OR at best (for the second half of it). "And her imprisonment was fabricated" is a very, very clear BLP violation. The source is only remotely reliable for the comments about her university place; for the rest of it, it is unreliable, and thus this is a BLP-violating edit. I've had my eye on the Ping Fu article for a while, and although this is not the worst I've seen, it's pretty standard of Chinese editors being canvassed into the crusade. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I assume that by "the second half" of "Her thesis cannot be found in archives and generally students majoring in Chinese literature would do research on literature or linguistics, rather than societies", you mean the part "generally students majoring in Chinese literature would do research on literature or linguistics, rather than societies." This seems to me to be supported by a passage in the source which Bing translates as In addition, Jiangsu teachers ' College graduate theses are based on literature and Linguistics: a study, and does not involve "infanticide" this involved sociological content, and Google as In addition, Jiangsu Teachers College Department of Chinese literature and linguistics thesis are based on the research object, which does not involve "infanticide" This involves sociological content.
 * 2) "And her imprisonment was fabricated" seems to be directly supported by a passage whcih Bing renders as During the study period, 78 students that no one involved in criminal matters, the jail thing is nothing! Association of arrest is a pack of lies! and Google as In its enrolled during the 78 grade students did not involve any criminal event, which is put in prison the matter is non-existent! Its a matter of the arrest of associations is a pack of lies! JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about #1, but #2, well, this source is totally unreliable for that particular bit of information, which is why this edit is a BLP violation. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Pierre Webó - Reply
Hi there LUKE, AL from Portugal here,

the "user" writes Fenerbahçe won the league when it DID NOT (champions were Galatasaray), and i was the one over the top, not the vandal? Fair enough...

regarding this team and its "fans", i think it was in Bruno Alves that someone added, in his HONOURS, "2013-14 Süper Lig" immediately after he joined Fenerbahçe. The season has not even started and he won the league, so i would not be surprised the same person had "contributed" in both Alves and Webó.

Back to Webó: yes it was the person's only edit, but because of that it cannot be deemed what it is, vandalism? Guess i still have a lot to learn in almost seven years of editing.

Attentively --AL (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, i agree. But i have ZERO tolerance for vandalism, only "excuse" i can offer you. Cheers --AL (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mazda 626/Capella
Nice, I hadn't gotten around to merging those but I am glad you did. Did you bring all references across, and how about infobox data (engines etc)? Thanks again,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Phew, I went to town and added all the relevant data and some new stuff. The 626/Capella relationship gets very confusing from 1991 until 1997 at least, maybe the best thing would actually be to name the article "Mazda 626/Capella"? The GD generation sits rather awkwardly in this article since it was never sold with the Capella badge (to my knowledge), but rather as the Cronos/Enfini MS-6.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't merge the infoboxes as it looked to me like they already matched. As to Capella/626 in the mid 1990s, it appears from a Google search that the Capella badge was still used in New Zealand, although if it was used anywhere else for the GE generation, I can't see it. Whilst I personally would be happy with a Capella/626 article, I would have to oppose it on MOS grounds and per WP:COMMONNAME. I also intend to merge the "Mazda Cronos" article into this at some point, as it's just a tweaked version of the GE Capella. I'm glad you've gone and tidied things up - it looks a lot better than when I merged things, although still not perfect! It's better to half one mediocre article than 3 half-arsed ones, at any rate. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Four half-arsed ones - there was also the Efini MS-6, which I already merged. The Cronos definitely should become merged. Lookin in a book of mine (Assembly: New Zealand Car Production 1921-98), the NZ-assembled cars were all called 626 or Ford Telstar. Since there is massive importation of used Japanese cars, you may simply have seen one of these.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's entirely plausible; I only had a brief search. Good to see that you're working quite hard on this article, even if you have made some silly errors that I fixed :P Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 365
I'm curious as to why you think that the removal of massive chunks of content without reasonable explanation - objected to by at least one other user besides myself, by the way - does not qualify as vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was reasonably explained. The user removed a whole bunch of promotional stuff, WP:UNDUE stuff, and poorly-sourced things. At least one user has informed you of what vandalism actually is; I'm beginning to wonder if the standard of your English is sufficient to edit here... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, this user did not state two of the three reasons you mentioned, at least for that particular revert. Second, "marketing fluff" does not qualify as a "non-frivolous explanation" per WP:VANDAL.
 * By the way: vandalism or not, do you actually agree with these edits - and if so, why? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidently I do agree, since I reverted you... And my statement above shows what I think about the edits. Whether the user expressly made every single reason clear is irrelevant; what they said was enough, and you're the one making the bullshit vandalism claims, not them. If you're going to act like this, then please, don't return to my talkpage until you actually understand what irony is (a clue: you whining about "vandalism", which Viper never accused you of, at least, not in the article, yet you accuse him of being a vandal...) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question: do you agree with the edits in principle, that is, would you have reverted if I hadn't called them vandalism - and if so, why?
 * Also, what does what the other user accused or didn't accuse me of have to do with this? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake. Yes, I agree with the other user's edits, and your edit summary makes fuck all of a difference. Now go away, since you seem completely incapable of reading anything I, or others, say. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I presume this is supposed to be ironic? :P Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A Cheeseburger for you!

 * Thanks, I was feeling kinda hungry... :D Based on your signature, I'm not surprised you found mine a little amusing :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To protect and serve Luke, to protect and serve. Tell me if you don't make the connection between the links and i'll explain. I'm testing you here. XD MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 21:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, they're all linked to your name, but... xD Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review of Colin Doyle
I see you've already been working on some of my suggestions so you probably already know, but just in case you don't, I've now finished my review. It would be great if you could take a look at my comments and give your opinion as the nominator. Thanks. ScoobyHugh (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

GAs
Hello, and well done. Fahey was pretty well ready before you got to him, apart from the lack of personal life stuff, but I'm surprised you got away with Doyle without having to do much content-wise on the broad coverage criterion. There's far more detail of his early days compared with more recent years: 17 games for Forest and Millwall gets two solid paragraphs, yet 16 games for Birmingham including Europe and playoffs in 11/12 gets less than a line. Keep up the good work. If ever you need a hand with finding refs or anything, please feel free to ask. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 17 June 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 suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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) 00:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)