User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd

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 [1]. — 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[2] 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)

Commer FC

Hi Luke, thought I'd move over here as it's getting congested at the other place. I have a picture of a Commer FC adapted as a TV detector van and badged as Dodge. (It's the one on display at the Science Museum, London.) I might need to edit it a bit, upload it to Commons and then link it here, so you can see what you think. Or if you don't think it's a good idea, before I do, that's OK. I have looked at the Commer lead and it seems fine but I believe boldnames for variants (or in text generally) shouldn't be used. (I read it I think at automobile conventions a short while back). Eagleash (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WPAC is where I read it but it does say re-directs to the article should be bolded, (as in also known as) but I'll leave that up to you. Eagleash (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I definitely think it's a good idea to have a photo of the Dodge version in there - it had notably different front styling to the image that's already in the article. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• OK well it is here. Think it's OK. NB glad to see you (or someone) noted the 1724cc displacement! Eagleash (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wasn't me - all I did was lightly cleanup some of what I pulled out of the main Commer article. :) Nice photo, although shame it's so grainy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It is a bit. That might be because I had to lighten it a tiny bit in Picasa because it was a bit dark otherwise. If not I blame Canon. BTW I've just done some conv. factors & wikilinks on the page and also started the Wikidata item Eagleash (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Is this any better, cropped the person on left out still, but no fill light. Eagleash (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's a bit better, although I'd also say you should crop out the guy on the far right (who you actually seem to have uncropped!), as nothing of value will be lost from that part of the image. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, third and final attempt. If this one's no good to you I officially give up. The low light, wide aperture and slow shutter speed don't make for brilliant images sadly. Eagleash (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Dodge detector van

• I think the low light has indeed screwed you on that one, which is a shame. But put it this way - what matters is how it looks at 300px, not the full image, and personally I think it's good enough in the thumbnail size for the article, particularly if there aren't really any other free images of the Dodge-badged vans. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if there any other free images, I am not entirely sure how to find them. I only ever use my own images uploaded via Commons. I just checked the data for the image and the camera set itself at ISO 800 which is ridiculous for an indoor shot without flash. (Scratch that, 800 is about right — now my brain has unscrambled!) Really must get to grips with overriding the settings. Last image I uploaded, sunny day, ISO 125 sensible speed/aperture. Still as you say I think as thumb or 300px it should be OK on the page. Eagleash (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well, this is the Commons category for the Commer FC and its derivatives, whilst this is the Dodge Spacevan category. Personally, when it is presented in 300px form, I think your image is superior to most of those; only the first one is clearly higher quality, with better lighting, and of a good angle, and that Spacevan looks very run-down (plus, who would ever pick a vehicle in that colour?!?!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've added the image into the article, by the way. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  Good stuff. I might sneak it into the main Commer article and/or TV detector vans in due course, but would like to see if I can get a bit more info maybe. (Any excuse for a visit to the science museum!) :) Eagleash (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Tell Luke off here

That's what it says so here I am. Clearly there is much to be discussed. Can we do it here? I do have to say I resent your immediate reverts and I do think you might have discussed your edits first - whether your opinions are seen as right or wrong by the community. Plenty that must be done first away here from WP so don't expect quick responses. Eddaido (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC) :)

• Firstly, the vast majority of my edits were fairly obvious cleanups. We're talking closing unclosed HTML tags, bringing infoboxes in line with how they're done in every up-to-standard article ever, bringing the lead in line with the consensus from a discussion at WT:CARS, sorting out the various Morris Oxford leads (and main infoboxes) so they were actually relevant to that specific model, and adding in a few more categories as more were needed. There's really nothing to discuss there; that's all stuff that should be blatantly obvious, to be honest, just from reading WT:CARS and looking at the well-developed articles. Now, there's a few other things that are worth discussing, and I can give more specific reasons behind my thinking, but when you blanket revert my edits with no real reason given, it's hard to see what your actual objection is - particularly since, as I said before, the vast majority of it was simply bringing things inline with WT:CARS consensus and standard practise. If you've got particular things you want to discuss, by all means say what they are, and I can explain exactly why I did what I did. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Revert my edits with no real reason given". I should have thought it was obvious. Try looking at the edit summaries.

Ah yes, the well developed articles. I'll get round to correcting their inaccuracies, it takes time.

Fairly obvious cleanups—might that use your personal benchmark for obvious? You blanket changed my articles (I think you will find I am responsible for almost all the content including images) apparently working down a list of my work so I want you to pause for a moment and talk with me about what you are trying to do. I will add here that many changes you have made I do happily agree were necessary. I got fed up with that Morris Oxford split and I really did expect the result to be ripped to shreds and left all the duplication for them to fiddle with leaving the words to rest where they fell (you must surely have recognised that). Still you have made some (good faith) mistakes that need to be fixed and you being you we will need to litigate them properly. Eddaido (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I would like to thank you for splitting out the Morris Oxford article (which clearly would've needed doing) and for writing things like the Austin 30 hp - the only issue is that they just didn't quite comply with the standard practises, and you really should've written proper leads (or had no lead at all) in the Oxford splits. Just a tip for future splits :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't thank me. Why do you try to do that? Up on some kind of high ground? How did you get there?!
I had expected the Morris split to produce a roar and a ripping and slicing from copy editors like yourself. One editor did kindly have a go at the lead of one Morris Oxford article. I had fully worked out my supply of friendly feelings for Morris cars and moved on. Eddaido (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• However, I'm rather confused as to why, rather than responding to me here, you appear to have attempted to tag-team against me with Andy (who continues to misrepresent me; I have no interest in discussing with him due to a long history of issues, not that I have no interest in discussion) on the closed AN3 case, Eddaido. Like I said; it is impossible to tell what you're objecting to when you just blanket revert with no proper explanation given, and when you don't actually raise any specific issues either here or elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Attempted? Your behaviour pushes / forces me to agree with Andy. (I often agree with him though he never has reason to know it). No tag-teaming its just what you are doing, have done, makes it happen. Andy looks to me to be quite right in these cases. Eddaido (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Failing to respond. I expect it is your nature to expect immediate fiery reactions to your, some would say fiery, actions. I'll say no more but I can see this current process might be going to take a long time. My concern is to get rid of inaccuracies, yours seems to me to be for (what you see to be "standardisation") just 2015's version of conformity.

"Didn't quite comply with the standard practises" (see conformity). Ha! This from the editor that accuses me of vandalism!

Gosh, long time since I've written so much on a talk page. Eddaido (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• So you're going to take good-faith remarks that were sincere as me trying to take the high-ground? Quite how you think I somehow object to you splitting out the Morris articles is beyond me, when I said the exact opposite (indeed, it's something I'd probably have looked to do myself.) My only objection is that you didn't change the lead for the individual articles, or the main infobox - bear in mind I've performed these splits before myself (although, admittedly, the articles I've split haven't started out in quite as much as a mess.) You do not own articles you have written, and yet you appear to think that you do. And I still don't actually see what your objection is; exactly what good faith mistakes do I need to correct? I cannot change a thing when you don't actually say what I've done wrong, and indeed you say that "I will add here that many changes you have made I do happily agree were necessary." If you have a specific objection to a change I made, regardless of what the change was, I will explain it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luke. Sorry (what turned out to be) a dead modem caused by interrupt in power supply and now I have other duties. The chain is being dragged more than I would like, this is a quick note to keep things live(ish). Thinking of conformity, why do you begin talk page paras with an asterisk?

I was taking offence at being thanked for my contribution. I only do it because I like doing it and am put out by your (maybe only apparent) presumption of superiority. Am I feeling bruised by you? Yes. Recovery nearly done. You are right. I do not own articles I have written. But if they exist in that form because I made them like that the nose goes out of joint pretty quick. As I'm near perfect when I see that a particular editor is almost entirely responsible for an article I do consult them, they may know more than I.

It has occurred to me that where you have made mistakes (i.e. acted on misunderstandings) it is because my writing was not clear enough. I promise I'll be onto it within 24 hours. Eddaido (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I use the asterisks to emphasize where things start and where they end; it's just personal preference. It's understandable that you would be a bit put out by someone changing an article you'd put a lot of work into, but the majority of my changes should've been uncontroversial (not trying to be superior at all; I'm not the one who decided the standard article formatting and all I'm trying to do is standardize things), and it is even more offputting when someone just reverts saying "discuss on talk" with no real explanation, particularly when they then say that they agree with most of your changes! There's no rush to get this resolved, take your time in getting your computer/other hardware sorted. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Logically, from your edits, every mention of you should be just Luke not Lukeno94 but Luke piped to Lukeno94. Can you see that? A kind of grand imprecision.

I believe I should go straight back up here, and where (I suppose) you do it on other people's talk pages, to remove those asterisks of yours which I find very irritating from a so-anxious conformist. 'Peacock' asterisks?? And next "take your time in getting your computer/other hardware sorted. :)" I have an idea of your level of comprehension from looking at your edits but how, in that little scenario, would I be able to be typing this so it appears on your screen?

You continue to make quite maddening "good faith" edits so I'll just let you play yourself out for now. Resumption when your edit rate has calmed. Eddaido (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, I don't change formatting on other people's pages, apart from on occasion where I'll make it more obvious that someone has replied to a comment by adding a : in (I won't change the formatting style, at least not normally). About 90% of my current edits are solely in relation to the consensus at WT:CARS with regards to how we display the manufacturer and parent company in both the lead and the infobox, WP:OVERLINK (delinking countries, removing multiple links in the lead/main body to the same place) or fixing simple typing and formatting errors. And I have no idea why you're sniping at me again - it is impossible for me to change my methods or actions if all you do is say that something is wrong whilst littering things with insults here and there, without ever specifying what, exactly, is wrong. This is not helpful to either of us; either tell me what I'm doing that is wrong, or find something else to do and leave me to edit in peace, because I can't fix something without knowing what is wrong. I would like to fix whatever is wrong, but you do not provide me the tools with which to do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Nope, its no good. I just get really angry each time I look at what you have done. I might read what you have put immediately above in a day or two. Eddaido (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• So now you're essentially going to reveal that you've been trolling all along? Good to know. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Holden Suburban

Hi, regarding this edit, in future can you please merge the contents properly rather than just deleting? Although I agree that a standalone article is unwarranted, I did spend a lot of time creating the page some years ago and I would have appreciated you finishing the job by moving the information to the appropriate page as I have now done. The article was fully referenced and was of decent quality. As has been advised to you in the past, trashing existing work of decent quality / notability without moving to an appropriate place is not particularly productive in my view. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 05:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry. Usually I do check when redirecting; evidently I forgot that time. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern stars

I hadn't noticed the 'vair section. :( I've added as much from the Polaris page as I thought made sense, instead; maybe it can get adds & cites. I've no beef with how it stands. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Tis understandable; I thought you'd missed that, as otherwise your revert wouldn't have made any sense. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Renaming categories

Hi Luke, in noticed this bold move from Category:Optare buses, a name that had been decided by consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 4. Please do not use "move" on category pages to rename categories by yourself, but use the process at WP:CFD. – Fayenatic London 18:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was unaware of the existence of the CfD discussion - it was not linked anywhere in the category (so that's hardly my fault). I'll bear that I shouldn't move things manually in future - now I know better. That CfD, for whatever reason, did not move things to where they should've been located (which is what I did) - the "buses" is a needless extra disambiguator, and does not match the way most car categories are located, or other companies who usually only made one type of product (Category:LDV vehicles, Category:Kenworth vehicles, Category:John Deere vehicles‎), although it is far from the only offender in this regard. Also, I fail to see what good you removing the CSD tag does - we're left with a needless redirect in an empty category. Regardless of that, I now know something I did not before, so thanks for that. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill

I don't think RealDealBillMcNeal is in a mood to communicate. If he continues to violate the topic ban just give me a ping. He will learn it applies one way or another. Chillum 22:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's OK, I wasn't intending to say any more to him on the matter. I was just making it crystal clear where things stood. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

Please label edits as vandalism only if they are actually vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I personally consider edits that deliberately defy standardization from an account that was only here for the purpose of reverting me to be vandalism, but I understand that may not be everyone's viewpoint. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Aero engine - grammatical tense

Hi, you may not be aware that there is a grammatical tense guideline for aero engines here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Heh, fair enough. Seems to be incompatible with a lot of other procedures, but I'll note that for future reference. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It came about because some editors had your understanding and others believed the articles should be written in past tense if none existed or just a few were preserved in museums. The perpetual edit wars stopped a long time ago. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and reverted the edits, including the same changes I made to the HS plane articles - I'm guessing there's a similar consensus there? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The aircraft project has never quite agreed on it to my knowledge, it is getting harder and harder to form a consensus there nowadays. Thanks for reverting yourself, not many editors would do that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Contrary to the belief of some people, I'm happy to go and revert myself if I see a solid reason against my change. I know what you mean about forming consensuses - that's an issue project-wide, particularly with some older editors set in the older ways. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The result is a messy stalemate, I'm seeing it more and more. We have guidelines, few people follow them and if you try to defend edits by quoting guidelines then it kicks off! I don't understand it. There is a list of missing aero engine articles if you have any sources (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Missing articles). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. I've not made myself entirely popular at a couple of WikiProjects when trying to push for some kind of standardization (partially because people are set in their ways, partially because I have a fairly short fuse when it comes to people being deliberately obstructive) I'm afraid I don't have any sources :) I only changed the tense of the HS-related things after spotting both the automobile articles had used the past tense. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)