User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Phillips sourcing
Hello. Please see Talk:Kevin Phillips (footballer)#Sourcing. All I personally intend to do is source and restore any sections of the pre-cleanup version that no-one gets to first. If anyone wants to improve/expand beyond that, I'm sure the readers would appreciate it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'll look into it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
"And Martin Buckley's Classic Cars A Celebration of the Motor Car From 1945 to 1975 says 571. (ISBN number: 1-84477-023-0) - definitely some major variation in the production numbers.
Do you have a page number for that? Eric Corbett 17:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- P235. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks. If you're interested I think I've got to the bottom of why there's such a large discrepancy in the Tiger II production figures quoted in different sources, and added a note to the article in an effort to explain what I think is going on. Eric Corbett 19:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seen it, and it does make sense. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
My Roberto Martinez edit
Sorry I didn't leave an edit summary (I hit submit by mistake), but what I meant to note was that Sky Sports sources say y&r same thing BBC does - he's been given permission to leave, but it hasn't happened yet ( and I imagine Wigan will seek compensation, so there's more that needs to happen before the separation is official). Mosmof (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- [1] "Manager Roberto Martinez has decided to leave Wigan" - regardless of whether or not he is taking the job, he's leaving Wigan. If you look at the Football page of Sky Sports, it says "Wigan exit confirmed". My edit was correct, and I will restore it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Right - but it's saying that a future exit is confirmed. I realize this feels like it's picking at nits, but "Martinez is leaving" is different from "Martinez has left". As things stands, he is still Wigan's manager. It's like if you're engaged to be married - that doesn't mean you're married yet. --Mosmof (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Reverting
Please don't take offence, but you'd probably do better sticking to the automatic edit summaries rather than drawing attention to this sort of thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
RFC/U
Just for info, there's already been one, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. The close did mention disruption at RfA, particularly in the context of "opinion of young editors", and also a need to be "a little more respectful to those around him".
So this would either be a second RFC/U (which is entirely permissible, of course), an arbcom case, or a discussion at WP:AN requesting some sort of formal restrictions on his behaviour at RfA. Read the first RFC/U to see the kind of reaction there might be from some editors to any such proposals. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- You might ask Gwickwire or other young men who have followed Demiurge1000's advice about their experiences. Please insist that email be sent through the user interface, so that it can be monitored by the Wikimedia Foundation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not intending - yet - to file a RFC/U case myself, and I don't intend to go to the level of ArbCom (Kiefer is clearly wasting people's time, but I don't think they're quite disruptive enough to bump it up that far at present). And although I was unaware of the previous RFC/U, looking at the close, that sums up the major reason why I don't want to file one at this time - Kiefer disrupted it so much, drawing in the other parties to do the same, that nothing happened. Which is exactly what is happening at the RfA thread. It's Matty I really feel sorry for - they didn't deserve Kiefer's comment, and all of this garbage hasn't helped things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:FOOTBALL overhaul
Good work, I'll try and create the actual page at WP:FOOTBALL later this week and we can get moving with this! GiantSnowman 08:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
AN discussion
I have started a discussion about some other editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Interaction ban proposed. Since your talk page comes up in the discussion, I thought it best to inform you as well. Fram (talk) 13:37, 3 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) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
Hang in there when the going gets tough and the flamers keep flaming. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
AfD Pet Collective
Hi I went ahead and did some editing over on the page and deleted some more of the sections with out sources. If you get a chance to look over it just let me know since I added in more references and I'm not sure what more I would need to do at this point. kgal1298 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Sports-related notability
Hello, mate. I watched my edits were reversed. The reason for this is, in English language the word "people" is used as the plural of "person". The "persons" plural is rarely, if corrrectly, used.
Ernestogon (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- With such a major policy, you should attempt to get a consensus prior to making any kind of change (other than something that isn't a typo). I'm not saying your edit was bad (and I was half-asleep at the time of reverting) but it's just food for thought :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Tell me what you notice
Here... MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that explains a lot then. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Collingham Bridge.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Collingham Bridge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Redrose64 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
GA assessment
Hi. I will be assessing Paul Robinson (footballer born 1979). Thanks, C679 16:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would really help with the review if you wouldn't make changes to the article while I am in the middle of reviewing it. Thanks, C679 16:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate that; I just realized there was absolutely nothing about the last two seasons. I'll save this current edit, and then leave it for you to process - yes, I'm aware there is nothing about the 2011-12 season in that edit :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have finished for now, I will be back online later, so please take into account the comments so far and leave me a message when you'd like me to continue my review. Thanks, C679 16:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have made more comments. I may not be online much before Monday. Thanks, C679 11:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The last prose review is ready. C679 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- In case the review page is not on your watchlist, I have made what is hopefully the final part of my review. Thanks, C679 14:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The last prose review is ready. C679 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have made more comments. I may not be online much before Monday. Thanks, C679 11:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have finished for now, I will be back online later, so please take into account the comments so far and leave me a message when you'd like me to continue my review. Thanks, C679 16:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Paul Robinson (footballer born 1979)
The article Paul Robinson (footballer born 1979) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Paul Robinson (footballer born 1979) for comments about the article. Well done! C679 17:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Paul Robinson (footballer born 1979)
Hi, well done on getting this passed at GA. I have one comment regarding the international years in the infobox. Standard convention is that these represent the years of the first and last caps, rather than the years of the first and last call-ups. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I can understand why that would be; I just believe this to be more correct. If you want to change it, go ahead - I won't war with you over it. :) Also, thanks on the congratulations, it's safe to say it was a hell of alot more work than I anticipated - serves me right for not checking the article properly prior to nomination! It was worth it though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply to the edit on AA
oh that wasnt me? i dont edit things i update i dont blank anything i removed soemthing about they album going double platinum im pretty sure thats not true or they would be alot bigger and you would able to find more online about that. i didnt make any page or anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEamonLanceley (talk • contribs) 02:54, 10 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) 00:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)