User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 9

Potential RFC/U
Considering that you did show concern regarding User:Baboon43's conduct at my inappropriately-filed ANI, I am contacting you per Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance. Would you be willing to endorse the RFC/U? You can see a draft at my sandbox. If so, you have my consent to edit my sandbox as needed in order to add such an endorsement (only if you agree, no pressure). The obvious goal here is for him to reevaluate how he interacts with others. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It may take a couple of days for me to have the time to do so - I'd need to evaluate all of his actions properly first. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, only if you're willing and able. It will likely take that much time (plus a wee bit longer) to get the thing ready. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it sometime towards the end of the week, and give my tuppence ha'penny worth. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The RFC/U is now open at Requests for comment/Baboon43. I'm just letting you know due to your prior expressed concern regarding these issues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Query reply
Thank you for your prompt query. Regarding "WP:COI", I am consciously doing my best to follow the guidelines. If I deviate, it is not intentional. I will continue to respect and follow the Wikipedia guidelines on "COI". I am a brand new user/editor on Wiki, and I have a lot more to learn. Been at it for a few weeks. Regarding "removing the reference to the interview", again, not knowing all Wiki guidelines, I thought (perhaps incorrectly, correct me if I am wrong) that "caution" should be exercised on a Biography page when including and referencing the subject's religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other personal information that can be used in a derogatory manner. You are totally correct, the After Ellen interview is reliable and there is nothing wrong with the information. I understand your reasoning and your point. I agree with you. Given the subject's view, Chamuel's view, I thought I was exercising "caution" in removing the reference. I can very well be wrong on this. I see your point. I appreciate your inquiry. I am doing my best to respect all contributors and to follow "WP:COI" guidelines. I know I have more to learn. Bammesk (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I applaud you for being cautious with a BLP, and that is exactly what you should be doing. However, if a source is reliable, and the information comes straight out of an interview, then it is definitely valid for inclusion in the article, and, although it could've been worded better, it wasn't presented in a negative manner. You don't have to fully answer this if you don't want to, but are you directly connected with the subject of the article in question, or are you just a fan? Thanks for your prompt response. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not directly connected with the subject of the article in question. I respect her / her efforts in shaping her path. I will do my best to follow, and learn, Wikipedia guidelines and contribute as best I can (in a positive way).Bammesk (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, good, glad we've cleared that up :) If you ever need any help with something, you know where my talkpage is. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding what you wrote previously, true, agreed, there is nothing wrong with the information / interview. I have no objections on its inclusion on the subject's wiki page. As you said "although it could've been worded better".  Well said.  I didn't / should've thought of that.Bammesk (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your welcome.Reid,iain james (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Second Avenue Subway
Hey Luke,

Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits of a couple of days ago at Second Avenue Subway. While most of the tweaks were quite good (and I intend to restore them), your use of the template:inflation template was directly counter to the template's own documentation, which specifically states It should not be used for large scale civil construction projects, such as the SAS, because they are not subject to the same consumer price index scales as ordinary daily purchases. Just wanted to make you aware of the issue so you don't make the same mistake again. oknazevad (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did what I was told to do in the GA nomination. Also, undoing the edit was incredibly unconstructive; just remove the offending conversion bits, rather than wholesale blanking what I'd done. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 06:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anna Frodesiak shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 08:15, 22 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) 23:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
To share your hiding place. :-[)

Bearian (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 
 * Thanks :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP
"Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources." There is no mention about BLP applying to people who died within the past 115 years. BLP stresses that it applies only to living persons (or persons who might reasonably be expected still to be alive). 75.208.176.27 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The same section goes on to say, "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside." I think this might be a recent clarification though? Previously I think it was wider, or at least, more ambiguous. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the guideline properly, so my apologies for that. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

EMDR
Hi Luke. Not looking to promote EMDR, but provide the correct information on EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), which is an integrative psychotherapy and is clinically defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMDRIntl (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, it's good to hear that your intentions are sound. However, your username presents a problem; it doesn't comply with the username guidelines. I strongly suggest that you read this page, and consider changing it. :) You may also want to find an administrator, and discuss things with them. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal at ANI
I have never brought Dharmadhyaksha to ANI, and I do not recall ever having brought MrT there either, please adjust your statement accordingly. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tweaked it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks for this and the tea :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Silverstone race results‎
I'd definately dispute a circuit with a comparitively brief history as Brooklands with relatively few international events, and Hockenheim and Imola whose international history is considerably shorter than Silverstone and were both considered second string to Nurburgring and Monza respectively and using the deaths of Clark and Senna as a claim of importance is not relevant at all. McLaren's death at Goodwood does not do a thing to the circuits importance as a race venue. Villeneuve's death at Zolder does not make it more important than fellow Belgian circuit Spa-Francorchamps. --Falcadore (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Imola has a massive legacy - 1994 saw to that, and it's more than just Senna's death - Barrichello's accident, and Ratzenberger's, and the resulting safety improvements everywhere. Brooklands is where everything started, pretty much. Hockenheim is probably on par with Silverstone, in reality - lets remember that Brands Hatch was the major venue in this country for a while, or certainly level with Silverstone. I wouldn't argue that Zolder is more important than Spa - hence why I didn't list it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The legacy does not belong to Imola the circuit but to Senna, Ratzenberger and the 1994 race specifically, not to the Imola circuit itself. The safety improvement that occurred elsewhere around the world have notihng to do with Imola itself. Brooklands was where British motorsport started but British motorsport was not a significant player in the evolution of motor racing until after World War II. It's like saying the Indianapolis 500 had a huge influence on Formula One. They existed at the same time and some tech, drivers and crew travelled back and forth, but that was it. Or Brazil's football stadiums influenced UEFA. --Falcadore (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously you and I have a very different interpretation of what a legacy is. Brooklands was the first purpose-built racing circuit, hence why that has a major legacy. This discussion isn't really going anywhere other than in circles though, so I suggest we leave it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:43, 30 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) 00:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit at RFPP....
Sorry to have undone your edit, but I fail to see a personal attack, really (making a mess etc...)...and the response by the IP played a part in my decision, too, so I would prefer to leave it on the page. I can see that you disagree with the IP, but am with the other admin here who fails to see real vandalism (we may just not be knowledgeable enough). Simply disagreeing with each other is not trolling, either. Cheeres and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way is "The only ones vandalizing the record tables are TwoNyce and his boyfriend Don Kings Hair" neither a personal attack or trolling? Accusing someone of being in a homosexual relationship in this style is clearly both, as the intent is pretty damn obvious, and, in fact, the comment shows the IP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and the page should've been protected! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I fail to see the problem with that: see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boyfriend....so perhaps it was just intended as meaning "mate", who knows. I have foregone interpreting the words of others too much, here on wikipedia. We (the users) come from different cultures and continents, are of different age, so you never know. I just assume good faith, that is all. Lectonar (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is fine, but it's not a suicide pact, and there are times when a user is clearly acting in bad faith. This IP was clearly an example of a user acting in bad faith. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Did you get an edit conflict message for this? -- Neil N   talk to me  16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I did, but it didn't show up any changes - no idea what happened! Sorry about that. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Mario Gotze
My edit to Gotze was removing an irrelevant tid-bit from his introduction. I've instead moved it into his Dortmund career section. Appreciate the concern. 173.74.7.196 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Initially, you'd nuked a load of information without explaining why, which is vandalism, hence the warning. However, thank you for acting in good faith, and relocating the information instead. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My original edit constituted the removal a single sentence. Hardly "nuking a load of information." Assume good faith. I'll make sure to annotate my edits in the future. Thank you. 173.74.7.196 (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS:DASH
Hello. Not sure how much of the Manual of Style you're aware of, but a relevant bit where football editors are concerned is MOS:DASH, which points out that we should be using endashes rather than hyphens in numeric ranges like football seasons and scorelines. The endash is the first and shorter of the two dashes in the Wiki markup box at the bottom of the edit window, the one immediately after where it says "Insert:" in bold type. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am aware of it; I just never remember to use it! D'oh. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Darren Freeman
Looks like we've had an EC, but I've updated the article some more. Thanks for your help. GiantSnowman 19:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I listed him as a player-manager as he clearly played some games last season. No idea whether that is still valid or not, but it certainly isn't implausible. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Soccerbase stats for Glenavon are almost certainly incomplete, see this - I doubt someone "took the Irish League by storm" with 2 appearances! GiantSnowman 19:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :) Ironically, there's another Darren Freeman whom plies his trade in the Irish leagues, playing for Newry City! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, and he scored against Glenavon as well! GiantSnowman 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's how I found him. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned my username violates guidelines
Hi Luke, you mentioned in Ami Adini deletion discussion that my username violates wiki guidelines, if that is the case do let me know how and I'll fix it but please I believe we can be polite even between British and Italians. You are correct I have only worked on 2 articles so far due to time and being fairly new to Wikipedia, although I have quite a few more I will make time to write or work on. Mggpublishing (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, thanks for taking my comment in good faith. If you read Username policy, you can see that your username falls foul of this part of the policy: "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product." I recommend you go to Changing username to change it to something else - something that isn't a company. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Luke, although mggpublishing is not a company that I know of, it’s a username I’ve used on the web often when I write articles, MGG being my initials and publishing is the action I’m doing when publishing an article. I’ve added a note on my userpage that explains that but I’ll check into it to see if it’s still a problem. Mggpublishing (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Zytek Z11SN
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC
I noticed you participated in the Deadmau5/Deadmaus RM and I was wondering if you were willing to leave your two cents here at Talk:Tech Nine to overturn another horrible move based on a name no reliable sources refer to the subject as. I am just trying to get consensus to move it back to Tech N9ne in the same manner Deadmau5 was moved back per WP:COMMONNAME. If you have the chance I would appreciate it.  STATic  message me!  16:01, 8 July 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) 00:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)