Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:45, 11 February 2014

This is VanishedUser sdu8asdasd's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 14 days

BMW E38

If want to consider that edit-warring, when other 7-Series articles do just well with such similar information in the infobox, that is quite questionable and selective on your part. You have not made such attempts on the other BMW pages, so why should your novice edits here maintain an inconsistency with other BMW model/platform articles?

BMW has pointed out Herr Boyer's and 1991's design connections to the E38 in various forms, regarding E38 design patents filed April 27, 1993 crediting Boyke Boyer, as well as the crediting of Boyke Boyer on third-party BMW sites and sources for his design work. Christopher Bangle already alluded to the E38 being in its "final wrap-up" in October 1992 upon his arrival at BMW Design. What Bangle saw in 1992, was likely from a 1-year plus effort to take a 1:1 concept clay design, into being production identical prototypes in final detail.

BMW referred to their E38 development status in June 1991 and explained their design process. That is where I retrieved the February 17, 1994 date of E38 pilot production, which you of course removed for poorly justified reasons. I already provided such sources years ago, but I.P. address vandals have as usual removed them without my knowledge and were left unchallenged and not reprimanded on such abuses.

I will retrieve them again, despite my prior citations being removed. Everything on this page is not even fully sourced, yet only this stands out to you as removable. Mind what you edit as unnecessary or fallacious, as you have not contributed on this topic until very recently. Too many naive individuals (and bloggers) rely on Misplaced Pages information for copy-pasting and do not need inconsistencies confusing them, due to vague/missing information.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm aware that other stuff on the page is a mess, but that's no excuse for attempting to edit war unsourced information into the article. What you seem to ignore is that my removal of that bit formed part of a large set of cleanup edits. Don't forget that I'm not the only one who has voiced an opposition; User:Mr.choppers has voiced exactly the same issue that I did. It belongs in prose, not in the infobox, and it should go from all of the other BMW articles that you are on about. And fuck off with the "novice edits" claim, that shows a tremendously arrogant approach from someone attempting to edit-war in unsourced information. Not to mention that I have more than twice the number of edits you do, and about 33-50% more in mainspace as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And you have again proven my point with your own arrogance and obscene language(unfit for this environment). You are not a frequent contributor to nor monitor things related to Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) nor things automotive, so certainly you appeared to be a novice concerning subject(BMW E38 7-Series) information. Sure you may have done well enough to clean up plenty of messes I disinterest myself with handling, however that was not my point that you were "novice" to Misplaced Pages. I am a busy engineer and work in that industry, so I doubt I have the time to fritter away on Misplaced Pages and necessarily focus my efforts on things specific to my interests on here.

I will revisit this later with more satisfactory evidence, as certain 1990s archives concerning the "entwicklung" of BMW's E38 7er are now inaccessible. Not only that, the 1991 date seems to be a bit off and may actually point to Boyke Boyer's exterior design work being finished sometime after April 1990 and before January 1991 instead, meaning it was possibly a good thing that you removed it. You better mind your language, as you can definitely be accused of incivility.---Carmaker1 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I will continue to use language as I see fit, see WP:NOTCENSORED. And you have absolutely no idea whether I'm a novice in the area or not; and nor is it relevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Referring people to DR

Just a word to the wise, in case you don't already know. Referring folks to DRN, 3O, or MEDCOM when there has been no talk page discussion, as you did here, is merely going to cause their cases to be declined as each of those venues has a strictly-enforced rule that there has to be substantial talk page discussion (preferably at the article talk page, though most DR volunteers will be satisfied with discussion on user talk pages as well) before a case will be accepted. That requirement is also recognized in the dispute resolution policy. RFC also has such a rule, though it's more of a suggestion there than a prerequisite. I've developed a suggestion page to which I refer editors when I decline cases for that reason. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it was a new-ish editor, so that was the best I could offer to my knowledge. I personally don't trust DRN, based on the cases I've been involved with there, but I try not to let my prejudices affect me too much (and that worked, for a change) - it had also looked like one user had at least attempted to discuss things, so :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good enough. As one of the pioneers at DRN, I'm a bit bemused by your statement that you don't trust DRN. Trust in what sense? In its efficacy? In its neutrality? It the way it fits in with Wikiprinciples? How? I'm not throwing down a gauntlet or other challenge here, but I would appreciate knowing why you feel that way in case there's something that we should improve or correct. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Because I've never had it resolve a case without one of the participants being blocked for their activities in said case, or with the case just going stale and nothing happening. This is simply my experience, it may or may not be a general reflection; I'm not generally active there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fair and I appreciate your input. The fact of the matter, both in the real world and here at Misplaced Pages, is that mediation (and all forms of DR at Misplaced Pages are variations on mediation, except for RFC) only resolves a small part of the cases that go through it. Mediation depends, ultimately, on getting people to come to agreement and a lot of folks — perhaps most folks — are only interested in prevailing. In the real world, where I'm a lawyer and have been involved in quite a bit of mediation, mediation is actually more effective because (a) people can be forced into it by a court, rather than just doing it if they want to, and (b) there are a number of incentives to settle, the largest one being that if there's no settlement then there's going to be a decision made eventually and someone will win and someone will lose. Here DR is always voluntary and there's no way to get a judgment. In light of the purpose of Misplaced Pages, that's a good thing: The RW system encourages settlements, that is compromises, whereas what we want here is for Wiki-truth to prevail through consensus. And "no consensus" is, rightly, an acceptable answer here. Thanks again for your input. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Clavdia chauchat

Hello Luke, the Talk:Australia national football team link you provided here does not mention a thing about Clavdia chauchat.. do you have the correct link? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Forgot the disambiguator, my bad, thanks! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat

Hello. I noticed you posted a message on Siddiquis talkpage. It is highly unlikely you'll get much of a response because that account has been blocked for years now. Green Giant (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• If you look carefully, you'll see that the edit summary contains (TW), which means that I placed the PROD with Twinkle, and Twinkle notified the page creator for me. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Aye I noticed, I just thought I'd let you know. :) Green Giant (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kayli Barker

Regarding my relist, I realize this action was a bit unconventional, but it's not about counting keeps and deletes. I read through all the comments and came away with the impression that there wasn't any overwhelming weight of argument on one side or the other. If my judgement was poor, and there really is consensus, then a few days from now we'll still have consensus and some other admin can come along and close it more decisively. In the long run, there's no harm in spending a few more days talking about this and getting a few more opinions. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, given that the discussion went stale 4 days ago, a relist was pointless. Secondly, the "weight of argument" is evident from the fact that two delete voters have changed their votes, one way or another. Thirdly, one of the two delete votes has no basis in policy whatsoever (GNG requires coverage to be non-routine, not non-circumstantial). It's not that your action was unconventional that's the issue, it's the fact that it is pointless and doesn't reflect the actual discussion (since you stated you were going to close as "no consensus", which would be an incorrect closure as well). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In my mind, one of the most interesting comments was, I still firmly believe this is WP:TOOSOON, but I can't disagree that the letter of GNG is met here if not the spirit, so I've struck my delete !vote (but without changing to keep). In my opinion, the spirit of all wikipedia policies is much more important than the letter. You interpret The Bushranger's comment as being a keep vote. I interpret it as an argument for deletion. It was largely for that reason that I felt declaring a consensus was the wrong thing to do. My advice here is to be patient. As I said earlier, if indeed the consensus in the community is that this article should be kept, then I expect that will be made more clear over the next few days and life will go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't interpret Bushranger's comment as being a keep vote at all, I interpret the article creator's comment as being potentially a keep vote. Massive difference there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hi Lukeno94. Thanks for pointing out my mistake here. D'oh! I hope I will be a bit more careful with my speedy deletion assessments in future. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the barnstar, and no problem :) It was an amusing little factoid, that was all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Joe Lolley

What copyvio? Have you warned the article creator? GiantSnowman 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• They lifted the entire two sentences that used to make up the early career stuff straight from the Huddersfield press release on him signing. And I left a note on his talk page about it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Solanki

I'm lost now! See the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• "14:13, 28 December 2013‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ . . (54 bytes) (+54)‎ . . (Sitush moved page Jawan Singh Solanki to Jawan Singh (politician): name per source) (thank)" - that's why you appear first on the redirect's history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Still lost. If I moved it, why am I first in the history? Presumably because the history has moved also? I'll have to refresh my memory on page moves - it's the only time I've ever seen the templated note below the redirect link, although I've done plenty of moves in the past.

  Still, it's an added twist to the ongoing battle against caste POV pushers! - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can determine, you moved the page, thus creating a redirect in the process. As a result, you are listed as the creator of that page. The original page creator has then tried twice to revert your move via cut-and-paste methods, leading you to eventually tag the original location under A10. Currently about to start a lecture, so no time to log in :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Awarded for your vigilance and due diligence in dealing with 2601:D:380:B5:69C2:B67E:90F1:13D4 across the entire range of Windows articles. Sincerely, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you :) It was a pretty easy "spam the rollback button", as it was obviously the same sort of edit on each article. I will never understand why people do these things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Debora LMP296, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KONI (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) 09:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to revert...

...but you did before me. Excellent sense of humour, matey. Soham 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm in a reasonable mood at the moment, so things like that will come out ^^ Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Spuistraat

Hi, you appear to be on same track. Please see Daft SPI as this is another manifestation of the case at WP:ANI. HCCC14 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• The IP confessed to being AA, so I reported them to AIV. There are not many people I dislike more than those who hide behind an IP and post vile trolling like this. (I have no interest in the dispute outside of countering any more of this abuse) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine but Spuistraat is active as we write and he is not AA but Daft, so can you please assist in reverting his stuff. The SPI will take its course. Thanks. HCCC14 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm unfamiliar with the workings of WP:CRICKET, or this sockmaster, so I'll leave that to people who know how to handle such things (I'm in enough disputes as it is). Also, why did you reinstate the AA IP sock's rantings on John's talk page? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, undo of Daft post done incorrectly. HCCC14 (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not a problem. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• And I'm curious, HCCC14, as to why you're engaging one indefinitely blocked user, and yet demanding that every post by the other one is removed? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you certain the IP is AA as I am not, though it is possible? So I am being polite but also expressing my own views about the ongoing Daft saga, with which this person evidently agrees. Suggest you see the Daft SPI archive. Daft is subject to WP:BAN and therefore WP:BMB applies to anything he inputs. This has dragged on years and highlights the inadequacy of WP when faced by a determined troll. It's a shambles. HCCC14 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see the IP has now been blocked so that settles that. HCCC14 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The IP self-admitted it here, otherwise I would have absolutely no idea about it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, and I see Daft SPI has been concluded with yet another block. I'm logging out now. HCCC14 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi

All humans are living on the Earth , so what is it copyright of pictures?! where is the copyright of my own uploaded pictures ? --۝ ۝ (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying, but I know what it is related to. The picture of that car was taken straight from a copyrighted website, and you cropped out the identification marks. Now, I don't speak Arabic, but there was no evidence you owned the rights to that photograph, particularly given the ease of finding the uncropped image on the web, and you have a long history of exactly this sort of thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wantage Hall

Hi! Not that I particularly care, but I am slightly surprised by your redirect of Wantage Hall to Whiteknights Park. As far as I can see, the hall isn't in the Whiteknights estate, predates the donation of Whiteknights to the university by many years, is a Grade II listed building, and is mentioned in a number of independent reliable sources. I can't see any reason to doubt its notability. That it gets a lot of slightly annoying schoolboy-level edits doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason for doing away with it. May I suggest a reversion to the status quo ante? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I redirected it to the wrong place, that is true (oops, I should know better, as I'm a student at UoR), but it hasn't really gotten any notability that is independent of the university, and I'm not aware of any inherent notability given by a building being Grade II listed either. The main thing here though, is that the only really encyclopedic information would be a very short stub (with the "Wardens of the hall", "Private's Progress" and "Hall alumni" sections being binned), so it doesn't really make sense to have it in its own article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you may be right. However, if you are going to redirect it to the Whiteknights estate, should you not merge the valid referenced content to the destination page? Except, of course, that it would be completely irrelevant there. So perhaps the best solution would be to put it back where it was? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's a Halls of Residence; nothing really needs to be merged, and if I culled the irrelevant information out of it, there'd be very little left anyway. Hence why I've done what I've done. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

What would you think if I nominated you for adminship?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would think you'd gone crazy. There is no way that I am currently a suitable admin candidate, as I am far too volatile, so please, don't nominate me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My talk page

You recently removed a valid and welcome message from my talk page. I'm not sure why you thought it was OK to do so, but it was not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• It was an advert, and included an email address in it. That is why I removed it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It was not an advert. Which part of "valid and welcome" do you not understand? Do not edit my talk page again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• It appears very much to be advertising a particular person, and it does have an email address in it.Given your recent atrocious handling of WP:BLP, I'd have thought that you'd be a modicum less arrogant... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

RFA

I'm not going to revert you (although I should), but you should not cast such wide aspersions about motives or cabalism. I haven't !voted in that RFA, and it's quite possible that I won't, or may decide to oppose. (Note that I didn't participate in either of his previous RFAs either.)Regardless of my support, opposition, or apathy, that whole section is wildly inappropriate and should be burned with fire. The fact that it is the only edit from an IP address is concerning in and of itself, and the formatting indicates that it is not something thrown together by a newbie. It's quite possible that it is the work of one of the banned editors from the "other side" of the EEML debacle, but whatever its provenance, it is thoroughly inappropriate. Horologium (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)