Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:50, 21 January 2015

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

Coloni / Raphanel

The reason for Raphanel being shown as driving the FC188B in Hungary is that his C3 broke during PQ and he jumped in the FC188B. Here's a pic of the poor sod walking back . I do not know for sure which car he was driving when he set his fastest time, which was hopelessly slow anyway. Steve Small's GP Driver Who's Who states it was the FC188B, even though he was entered in the C3. That was the reason for the table being the way it was. How you process that info is up to you, but I thought I'd clarify it for you since you're in a Coloni mood. Good work, by the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation Bretonbanquet - the stats sites I was looking at seemed to indicate that he used the FC189/C3 at that race, so I went with that. Not sure where the supposed FC3 came from, but then, I'd seen the Leyton House CG911 randomly described as a "CG991" in a couple of places on here... I'm surprised the C3 didn't already have an article, particularly due to the farcical Subaru engine only ever being used in that car. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries. I think those cars were called various things (not all of them polite), and I've also seen the C3 called the FC89, as well as FC3. All the modern stats sites copy from each other so you'll usually only find the weird and wonderful info in contemporary sources, books / magazines etc. As for Raphanel in Hungary, I'm sure he started off in the C3, but I can't get to the bottom of whether he set his "fast" time in that car or the spare FC188B. I'm sure he didn't care by that time anyway, and he must have been very glad to avoid the Subaru debacle. F1 was way more interesting back then ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be the first time that a car has been given a bazillion different names! I often wonder exactly what Roberto Moreno could've done with a sustained run in a midfield car, rather than being bounced around between a whole bunch of them, most of them hopeless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, exactly – one of a number of drivers at that time who got caught up in a spiral of awful cars without ever getting a proper, sustained opportunity. A lot of chancers seemed to own teams back then, and they collectively wrecked some promising driving careers. Then Bernie made it really expensive to enter F1, and all those little teams disappeared sooner or later. Better for the image of the sport, but the downside is that a lot of good drivers now can't even get into F1, even in a hopeless car. Not sure which situation I prefer! Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's hard to say. I'd certainly welcome a 26 or 28 car grid, even if it was essentially a two-tier system. The workings of F1 have always been baffling; how did the likes of de Cesaris get so many decent drives, and yet far more talented and dependable drivers didn't? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with you – more cars will always generate more excitement, even if some of them are useless. Haha, poor de Cesaris, may he R.I.P. He was a pretty handy guy towards the end of his career, but it is somewhat remarkable how he continued to get good seats while perpetually smashing cars up. He makes Maldonado look like a safe pair of hands... Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Don't know if you noticed, Bretonbanquet, but I put an article together on the Subaru 1235 anchor, sorry, engine. Looks like it was used in the WSC as well, with fairly predictable results... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Good work! It just proves what I've always thought, that failure is more interesting than success! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• It often is, yes. I intend to continue filling in the remaining holes in our Formula One coverage over time; I just wish there was a F1 Rejects equivalent for sports car racing, as that would make my life there a heck of a lot easier! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Lots of holes in our F1 coverage, especially with back-of-the-grid teams, drivers and cars. A Sports Cars F1 Rejects... hmmm...! Might be a big website! Good fun though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed it would, Bretonbanquet, even just based on some of the articles I've written about a few major flops that are often forgotten; one example being the Ford G7. (Not sure how I missed your reply here). Just finished an article on the infinitely more promising Fondmetal GR02; if only the gearbox hadn't been made out of potatoes and the team had some money! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I guess it's our job to make sure these companies aren't allowed to forget their flops! Ah yes, I remember the Fondmetal as I was a bit of a Tarquini fan at the time. I really thought the guy could be a points-scorer in the right car. Chiesa not so much! A classic example of a basically good car, and a good bunch of guys there, but a serious lack of cash. Then the more problems they had, the less cash they had; that old vicious circle. I also remember eyebrows being raised when the Forti FG01 appeared to be a rehash of the GR02, and of course by that time it was a total dog. Shame! Another great article though, good work :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks :) I just wish I'd been around at that time, and not been merely a twinkle in my parent's eyes, as there was so much more variety everywhere back then. Nowadays, the only major competition with a massive amount of variety is the British Touring Car Championship and perhaps some of the GT series; but even those are more closely related than they once were. The Ford G7 project was frankly hilarious to read about; quite how Ford management let that car keep their name on it, I don't know. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It definitely seemed like there was more going on in those days, and the whole sport is more homogenised and sanitised today. But the coverage then was nothing like it is now. No internet! You really had to scout around to find out what you wanted to know. I remember standing in the newsagent's reading Autosport every week because I couldn't afford to buy it... Yeah, haha, the G7 was a shocker. Why on earth anyone persevered with it, I have no idea. These days Ford would have bought all the cars back and scrapped them to avoid further embarrassment! Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, and that's why there are so many holes in our sportscar coverage here, even when it comes to works/semi-works cars and very successful ones! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• If only we had enough space at home for a full run of 1960s-1990s copies of Autosport! Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• They'd probably get lost at my place, in amongst piles of laptops that I really need to get around to finishing and selling... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Haha, you can always rely on work to get in your way ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not work so much as something I bought to pass the summer and time off from Uni with... and still haven't finished. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Schwarzer

Hi! In reference to your comments on my talk page, the article I read stated that he has completed a move to Leicester City. In reference to your edit comment (specifically "Why does no one actually read what they're citing?), the article I read stated that he has completed a move to Leicester City. Guinness2702 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• That particular comment was more in frustration at people generally, not you, so I apologize for that. However, Guinness2702, you definitely fell into the trap of believing the Daily Mail; as anyone can see by the fact there are still pieces three days later talking about him being about to sign shows how wrong the Daily Fail were. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that Mark schwarzer's move has been confirmed by the premier league . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.209.91 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• However, Leicester City have no official announcement, he has no player profile there, and Chelsea still list him as their player, so I'm afraid that the Premier League appear to have jumped the gun on that front, and we can't list him as a Leicester player yet as a result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• And just as further proof that the website can get it wrong, it still lists Hatem Ben Arfa as a Newcastle player. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We all knew it was happening could have saved yourself a lot of hassle it's now Signed and sealed 82.9.209.91 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, now it is done, yes. However, I can think of numerous times in the past where a deal has been done and it looking like a formality, only for something unforeseen to crop up; Loic Remy being one example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist

Hey Lukeno94, thanks for the assist here. This user is being problematic, and I opened an AIV report that's been percolating all day. Not sure if it will be tended to or archived by a bot, but this user isn't responsive to input, and I think there may be a language barrier. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• No problem :) One of my issues with AIV is that a block often has to be "super obvious", or an admin simply won't deal with it. I would consider this one to be fairly obvious... but the editor hasn't gone around calling a bunch of people shitheads, so most AIV admins won't deal with it. Obviously, if AIV doesn't deal with it, the next step is either AN3 or ANI, depending on exactly what state the edit warring is in at that point. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ched Evans

Hello, firstly before we get into a removal war, I wanted to put my point across on the Ched Evans page. Yes, I understand what you are getting at but I don't think the removal of whole "Grimsby Town" chapter is correct. There after all several verified articles linked to the statements and so forth and perhaps that this move was quahsed fairly quickly and in the space of day maybe means that's why it hasn't gained any national media attention yet. Even so if over the next few weeks Evan's has similar situations to the Grimsby one but with other clubs than I agree that perhaps the chapter be removed and be shortened to include all of the other clubs. But at the moment I see no real reason not to include the chapter in the article until a time comes to maybe downsize it to be included in another chapter. On the other side of the coin and away from Misplaced Pages, being a season ticket holder at Grimsby Town I've heard the club may end up still offering a deal to Evans, so I wouldn't shoot this off as a pointless bit of journalism in a local paper yet. The story may only be in the Lincolnshire area but I still feel its valid and still warrants inclusion on this article due to being on verified media sources. Kind Regards Footballgy (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• At the end of the day, we have an enormous WP:UNDUE weight problem with all of this transfer speculation, and personally I think there was too much in there already. The simple fact of the matter is that this Grimsby Town link has only drawn coverage from Grimsby's local paper, and not only that, the only people whom have even commentated on it are directly linked to the club, or the proposed deal. Most football articles carry as little transfer speculation as possible, and this one has almost every single link that has been made. I would strongly recommend that you self-revert, Footballgy, because the link simply isn't notable. There's no evidence that this was even a real thing anyway, and not just Grimsby Town looking for a bit of the publicity gravy train. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

chaining of the keepers number

http://www.lcfc.com/news/article/picture-gallery-training-2189833.aspx picture 13 training shirt show number — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcfcnsk (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, you can, but I wouldn't consider a training shirt to be incontrovertible proof that he'll wear the number 32. I'd wait until he is named in the squad for Leicester's next match, myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok cheers normal it is but I will wait till tomorrow to edit in the correct number — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcfcnsk (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced genre

Can you keep an eye on What About Love (Austin Mahone song)? Someone added unsourced genre. 115.164.55.203 (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done; I've added a reference for my change as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY discussion

Hi there LUKE, all well?

I have already left a second note on this discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Counters_in_players.27_honours), leaving more input and an apology, and also who I was before I was "reduced" to this IP.

Simple question, that you can answer here, on my page or at the discussion: are runner-up positions in LEAGUES also now included. If so, I apologize for not knowing that and mislead others.

Attentively, happy 2015 --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Flyer (pamphlet)

Your turn BMK (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reported them to AIV, I have no idea if they're just trolling or if this is just a misguided quest, but they are being ridiculous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Gone Home

You say that user score is not a reliable source. Source of what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.108.169 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• We do not include user scores on anything, because they are not reliable. It is extremely easy to abuse the system to overwhelmingly create positive or negative feedback, and, equally, Joe Public is not a trusted games journalist/reviewer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Essex V6

Helo , I wanted to ask if you could add a picture to this article :https://en.wikipedia.org/Ford_Essex_V6_engine_(UK) since I've tried but the pictures get deleted because I don't know the copyright license , could you please add one?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done, since there was an image on Wikimedia Commons of this engine. It's easiest to only upload images you've taken yourself, because the exact license is otherwise a nightmare to sort out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Links

Hello, they weren't inappropriate links, the site was relevant to Liverpool FC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrey619 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong. They weren't official links or reliable sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you have any suggestions?

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "oppose". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours (you did express some very strong reservations, to say the least), or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or {{talkback}} ping). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Piotr, it was a year ago so I can't remember specifics; I'll just go on what I can see in that RfA. I stand by my analysis of your response to question 4; even if it was too much of a loaded question, there are much better ways of responding to it. The most obvious thing is talking about how you'd gone on to resolve the issues ArbCom brought up at the time, how you'd changed your behaviour since then, or simply stated that "I don't feel this question is neutrally worded enough to answer", or something along those lines. Making a joke about being married just made it look like you weren't taking things seriously. Question 5's answer also showed that as well; you hadn't changed your answers in a significant way from the previous RfA, and the fact that you seemed to be implying "nothing has changed" makes it hard to support you, when you'd failed that previous RfA. In terms of your more recent conduct at that time, well, I would've been going on what was presented on the RfA by other users. Personally, I'm not certain that you applying for adminship again is ever going to work; too many people are going to oppose you based on the 2009 incident even now, and every little action of yours is going to be under the microscope as a result. I certainly think that waiting another year would be sensible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. In question 4, I was trying to point out it was a logical fallacy, but yes, I was too smartsy-pantsy. I have no problem with everything I do being under the microscope, as I have nothing to hide. But yes, you are right it may be good to let things cool down for another year; I can already see some people opposing what they'd denounce as a "yearly event" by know... Would you mind helping me answer the questions better? By saying "nothing has changed", I was trying to say "I have been doing nothing but uncontroversial, helpful edits since the 2009 incident". Clearly, I didn't word it well. How would you go about it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly don't know; I'm a Chemist/computer geek, not a linguist. As such, the finer points of how to word things are beyond me; I just know what looks right and looks wrong to me personally. What I would say is that it would be best to just approach the questions from scratch, and answer them with new words; don't even look at your previous answers for them, just do totally new ones with how you feel now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

NASCAR

http://www.jayski.com/pages/tracks-seating.htm

Here is the source for the capacities, but I was not allowed to post that link for some strange reason... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.123.104 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• It isn't a reliable source, and it certainly isn't appropriate to replace official links with. Just stop. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Lukeno94!!

Why did you restore move protection to Windows Vista? Why? I want to know why. 216.145.89.170 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, you didn't remove the move protection. Only admins can do that, and I'm not an admin. Secondly, you removed the move protection template from a move protected page, which is inappropriate. Thirdly, all of your edits today suggest that you at trolling, so please, do something productive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Many ones bite the dust

A lot of people we both encountered are dropping off the radar. Here's to hoping that a few years from now, you'll be a graduate and we'll still bump into each other while editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, a lot of them were part of the Msoamu sock farm, MezzoMezzo... that took far too long to unravel, but at least we got there in the end. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty

Thanks for your honesty at a recent discussion, Luke. I do respect your thoughts and you may be right. I appreciate that you voiced that you respect mine. Hopefully we will get to work with each other someday. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• There's few things as annoying as pure sheep at AfDs (in one of those discussions, at least); and I know full well that I was one of them once. The main thing is that you weren't being a total sheep there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You are so right; I've felt that way about "sheep" for awhile but never mentioned it to anyone or read anyone call it what it is, and that is good to hear we are in agreement about that; you probably noticed in my first sentence I made reference to this phenomenon. Prhartcom (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, you did. And right after your vote, we have perhaps the worst sheep vote so far. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pings

Just a heads-up; this probably didn't do what you expected as pings only work if they are done at the same time as you sign and date, as it needs that for the notification. Most annoying that it doesn't and fails silently, but difficult to see how else it could work. It also needs to be in a section with a header for the link, and you're limited to 20 pings at once; not a problem in this case. See the documentation at {{ping}}.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 19:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ah well, thanks anyway. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Cactusjackbangbang

Regarding this, an SPI has been filed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. Regardless of the AfD, I think it's obvious there is a sock farm going after Neelix, and that Jdh9 is part of it. They made three edits, and then jumped right into both AfDs of Neelix articles. I don't see why we should allow further disruption. --Laser brain (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• When a user has edits outside of the AfD on completely unrelated subject matters (or at least, not particularly obvious subject matters), it is inappropriate to automatically remove the vote based on a sockpuppet allegation, particularly if they've made an opposing vote to yours (as happened in this case; I know you didn't do the reverting, but that's not what I'm saying). I'm well aware of the sockpuppet/meatpuppet farm that is targeting Neelix; in fact, I've alluded to it on multiple occasions in that AfD, and if I saw a user make their first edit in that AfD voting to delete, I would remove it myself. We should not, after all, assume someone is guilty until proven innocent; that is the wrong way around entirely, and AGF does just stretch far enough to be relevant here (other possible explanations being that they were canvassed). Let's not forget that the account does predate the AfDs, after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I can see the case for erring on the side of AGF. --Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm glad that you can. If Jdh9 is blocked for being a sock, then I'd happily remove the edit myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Neymar: Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015

Hi there.

I see you have rejected my suggestion for an addition of a section called "Tattoos" to Neymar's page, on the base of "as per WP:TRIVIA". I am new to Misplaced Pages, so I don't understand if you have denied it because you find the content unappropriated or if you need me to write the subject down as I think it should be written in the page. I have done the suggestion the way I did just because I thought it was the correct way to propose it.

In case you consider that the topic is unappropriated, I ask you to please reconsider based on the following two reasons:

1. Other players already have such a section, like David Beckham, Raul Meireles, other (didn't bother to look around) https://en.wikipedia.org/David_Beckham https://en.wikipedia.org/Raul_Meireles

2. In "WP:TRIVIA" I found nothing against my suggestion, and it is stated:

• "(...) A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. (...)
• "(...) If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. (...)"

I appreciate your answer, and excuse my lack of experience in Misplaced Pages.

Thank you in advance.

Cheers, Luisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinheiro a (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, Luisa; welcome to Misplaced Pages! (I've left a welcome note on your talk page). The simplest response to this is that, on Misplaced Pages, just because one article contains information on a particular subject, it doesn't mean that another has to. Now, if Neymar's tattoos were the subject of discussion in various independent reliable sources, then it might be something that is valid to include; you only referenced one source, which was a primary one. However, I don't think tattoos are a particularly encyclopaedic topic; a lot of people have them, and they're not really relevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Luke,

thank you for the welcome note, I will check it carefully soon. There are many reliable sources talking about Neymar's tattoos, nevertheless, the "primary source" I have indicated for the edit is the only one I could find that makes a good gathering of all information. I believe that for this topic (of tattoos) it's irrelevant to have a "reliable source", as looking at tattoos in photos and transcribing them does not require any proven reliability, and its veracity is easily verifiable by anyone. Isn't your statement regarding tattoos "(...) a lot of people have them, and they're not really relevant" showing that you are letting your personal opinion about tattoos interfere with your decision? To the fans, to Neymar, and to many other people who consider tattoos an art the tattoos are certainly relevant. Don't you agree with me?

(sorry if I am answering this the wrong way - through an edit - but I found no other way).

Cheers, Luisa— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinheiro a (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have any issues with tattoos; the issue is that including information about them in a person's article is generally trivia, and Misplaced Pages isn't about trivia. Everything on Misplaced Pages revolves around reliable sources, and I'm not disputing the reliability of the source here, hence the comment "independent". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, another bold statement: "Misplaced Pages isn't about trivia". Check https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia In this page it is clear that relevant trivia should be included in the articles, and only "trivia sections" should be avoided. Trivia should be integrated in the text without creating trivia sections. In this specific case, I believe the topic "tattoos" could be part of his "personal life" section. Just out of curiosity, isn't the statement "Neymar is a Christian" on his personal life also Trivia? It is also written in the page I referred above - regarding handling trivia by[REDACTED] - that: "(...) It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers. (...)". Therefore, it looks like you are one of these editors who block content to his likes (I recommend some introspection). I feel this discussion will lead nowhere, so thank you for your time. Regards, Luisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinheiro a (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• That is an essay, and is just another user's opinion; as such, it carries no more weight than my own opinion. And yes, his religious status could indeed be classed as trivia unless he happens to be strongly religious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Honda CRZ price update

Hi Lukeno94,

I just wanted to give more recent update information on the Honda CRZ price slash of one million Pak.rupees. I have no affiliation with Honda or the website whose reference I gave. I'm a farmer by profession and was just browsing and saw the old price mentioned,so I thought of updating the information. If you think it's wrong ,you can delete the edit I made. take care.

Adnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnakhnpk (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Adnakhn, if it wasn't spam, then the wording was still completely promotional, and was probably a copyright violation of the source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI revert

Hello Lukeno94. Please don't get upset when you get the revert-notification about one of your edits I undid at the ANI-Binksternet thread. Most of the reasons for my action I stated already in the edit summary. Fact is that Mr. Guye added an oppose vote after the original withdrawal, and then it was hidden in an "extended content" box, but not deleted. Later, Blue Salix added a support vote, and you deleted it. Having yourself voted oppose, I'm really uncertain what to think about it. Although the proposal was withdrawn, and the instruction "please do not add anything" has been followed by almost everyone, the thread was not formally closed. In my opinion, none of the involved voters, including me, should redact other peoples' edits there. (Please answer here, if you like, I'll watchlist it.) Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it would've made everyone's lives easier if, after the proposal was withdrawn, someone would've actually closed the damn thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you. (However, the thread was archived, but never formally closed, in the meanwhile.) But then, at the last moment we were presented with Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Something for both sides to keep in mind. I think that was an important contribution to the underlying discussion of the infobox-succession box-imbroglio. "What we don't do is create little content fiefdoms by using a project or a template as a backdoor to impose changes over a broad swath of articles without seeking consensus amongst the editors there as to how content will be handled there." disagrees sharply with Number57's closing rationale at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. The question is: "Can 12 people, 11 of whom do not usually edit in the area of congressmen, establish "consensus" for a change that affects several thousand articles, by citing rationales likes "agree" or "per the above/per User N.N.", or giving the rationale "it declutters the box" when writing "redistricted" in place of a person's name leaves the box of the exact same size, at a "hidden" venue without notifying the pertaining wiki projects?" Redacted The RfC was added to RfCs on "Politics, government, and law" and "Biographies", the header is discarded at archiving. For me it was an eye-opener, and has made the whole report worth it's while. As far as I could ascertain, the change to "redistricted" in the infobox was actually done only at Michael Grimm, Charles B. Rangel, and the four Californians of Binksternet, and nowhere else. So there is another question: "Can somebody drum up a few people to establish "consensus" that affects several thousand articles, to use the new "consensus" only at his two pet articles, and provoke everybody who comes across them and notes the inconsistency, into an argument eventually leading to edit-warring about it?" Kraxler (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have/had no idea about the exact context at hand, and frankly, it didn't matter. All I saw was a bunch of people jumping on Binksternet in an excessive manner, seeking a 0RR restriction, which seemed nuts. A 1RR restriction might've been more sensible, and certainly would've required more than a passing glance to determine... but 0RR? I'd forgotten you'd filed that particular request, and I don't see why you didn't archive it when you withdrew it; the "something for both sides to keep in mind" came four days after you withdrew your request. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That was my first ANI report. The 0RR was probably over the top, as soon as I recognized that, I withdrew it. Next time I need to report something there I'll try it with 1RR. As to archiving it myself, I'm not sure that would have been a good move. Just to close formally a withdrawn proposal led to another controversy. I'm not sure what would have happened if I had archived it. It was eventually archived by a bot. Kraxler (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, I see what's going on here. You and I are referring to two different sorts of archiving; you're talking about the one where the bot moves it to an archive page, whilst I'm referring to the method of archiving using the archive top and archive bottom templates on a withdrawn/closed discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

GM Futurliner Page.

I have provided edits with pictures to the GM Futurliner page with permission of the necessary picture owners, This will be your last chance to revert back to my changes, or you will be reported to a real admistrator. You can not go around pretending that you are. Per The Misplaced Pages Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbschev (talk • contribs) 01:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Another high-and-mighty user who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. You have absolutely NO evidence that you have permission for those pictures, and even if you do, you claimed that each and every one was your own work, sometimes with dates that were later than the exact same image had been uploaded on the web previously. But sure, go ahead and report me for removing copyrighted images, or images that you added with terrible formatting in an inappropriate manner; I'm sure that'll go very well for you. And no, I have never pretended to be a "admistrator", let alone an "administrator". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Pistol Page

The page you edited referring to pistols was done erroneously, while you may believe a revolver is not a pistol, a simple search for "define revolver turns up: "re·volv·er rəˈvälvər/ noun noun: revolver; plural noun: revolvers

"a pistol with revolving chambers enabling several shots to be fired without reloading."

Since this page was changed not based on fact, but personal opinion, I will be reporting you unless the page is reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigy 16 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• The page explicitly states that there is an inconsistency in the definition of what a pistol is; you simply state one definition of it. Dictionary.com defines it as a handgun. So do Merriam-Webster. The only dictionary source I immediately see that supports your claim is the Oxford one. But sure, go ahead and report me; I'm sure that'll go very well for you... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, Luke. I saw your reports at WP:AIV referring to this editor. I have blocked both the account and the IP address that you reported for a week. If it were just a matter of block-evasion it would have been for a much shorter time, but in my opinion the malicious stalking of your edits put the case into a more serious category. However, I thought it only fair to let you know that I can't see why you weren't blocked for edit-warring, as well as the IP editor, and I have asked the blocking administrator for clarification. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why should I have been blocked, JamesBWatson? I didn't violate 3RR, and was careful not to. Meanwhile, the IP made four reverts. Thanks for blocking the account and other IP though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's not fight over "The Incredibles"

I understand that your undoing my edits. But the word count is over 700 on the Incredibles. Let's not fight over the word count. We don't want to get blocked for edit wars. I am a sad strange little Wikia contributor and you have my pity,(does a Vulcan salute from Star trek and Toy Story) Farewell. --81.97.18.158 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I do agree, for the most part. However, this particular edit (ie, the first of your two) made things objectively worse in my opinion, which is the only opinion that matters, (User:Sjones23 also reverted you on that front.) Also, I get your reference from the end of your comment, so a note to any talk page stalkers: please don't admonish this IP for their joke at the end! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)