User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Hello, Lukeno94! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi, I've seen some of yout infobox improvements, and I have a suggestion. Books on locomotives normally quote partial inches as fractions, not decimals, so we should really display in the same form. So, instead of putting something like this:

{{convert|4|ft|7.5|in|m|3|abbr=on}}

which displays as

4 ft 7.5 in (1.410 m)

put this instead:

{{convert|4|ft|7+1/2|in|m|3|abbr=on}}

which displays as

4 ft 7+1⁄2 in (1.410 m)

This works for 1/2, 1/4, 3/4, plus (I think) 1/8, 3/8, 5/8, 7/8, but not the sixteenths. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Following on from the above: regarding this edit, please note that the |abbr= parameter has only two valid values: |abbr=on and |abbr=off. Use of any other value, such as |abbr=none, may give unexpected results. Omitting the parameter entirely has the same effect as using |abbr=off. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice - I have indeed spotted the fractions and how to do them in another edit, the only reason I have been omitting them and using the aforementioned decimals is due to the fact that they were in a format previously that I could not use, and I'd done most of the edits before I worked out how to do decimals. And the reason I used abbr=none is because I'd seen that somewhere (don't remember where) in an article, and the last time I omitted the function the code didn't work (although not for that reason, it's still psychologically affected though). Lukeno94 (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few funny combinations of units which throw an error when used in the basic {{convert|quantity|from|to}} form. In most cases these can be fixed by forcing the number of decimal places, as in {{convert|quantity|from|to|3}}, but as you discovered, using certain named parameters can also work. It's not limited to |abbr=off - |lk=off can also work, as can certain others.

Fractions that won't work in the way that I described above are those using single characters (ie ½, ¼, ⅛, etc.); they need to be in three-character form (ie 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Excluding the tractive effort (and, when I remember, boiler pressure), I leave the |to field blank, as it works doing that and it also will always go to the right unit if I put that (excluding the aforementioned lbf, which goes to N, when we want kN, and psi goes to KPa not MPA, when we want the latter. Most pages are done in this way as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Luke, I've seen some of your conversions, and I disagree with some of your changes, most notably this edit you just made to British Rail Class 323.

• I think that "ftin" works better than decimal "ft".
• Whilst horsepower is used for diesel engines, electric locomotives are normally only quoted in kW or MW, so do not need a conversion.
• Metric units should really use the correct prefix to use a figure in the range 0..999, so 1.168 MW is correct, and US locomotive weights should explicitly convert from "lbs" to "t".

See WP:UNITS, etc., for more information. Tim PF (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If I put the "ft" in, that would've been a complete accident. I disagree on your point about electric locomotives, as the majority of BR trains already have the conversion in, and thus all should have it to be brought in line with those. I appreciate your point about the MW, but again, most trains are shown with kW so I altered it to bring it in line with those. I can understand your point about "lbs" to "t", but having the information there in "stones" is not necessarily a bad thing. Also, going back to the HP/kW bit, it enables a more direct comparison between diesels and electrics due to the fact that some people will not necessarily be able to compare "W/kW/MW" against each other as they would with "hp". Anyway, that's my thoughts on it, and I apologize for the "ft" error, that was probably supposed to go blank of the "ft" so it would autodefine it, or something - can't remember precisely Lukeno94 (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If you looked at the diff link I made above, you'll see that you did indeed remove the "ftin", but the autodefine for "m" gives "ft", so the precision will determine if it has decimals. It's one of several instances in {{convert}} where the default option is not necessarily the best, as is often precision and having to add "abbr=on" most of the time. I find that I have to use the "show preview" button quite a lot when doing conversions to check that it actually does what I really want it to do.

I don't know where you get "stones" from, or are you mixing up with the ST in Short Tons?

I know that a lot of trains are shown in MW, but then again I've noticed "25,000 V" used a lot too (not a conversion issue -- just that 25 kV reads better).

One horsepower I did remove was for head end power, where I've only ever seen either kW or ETH index. But I suppose it doesn't hurt having hp for electrics, even if it is rarely quoted in most spec. sheets.

Keep up the conversions. Tim PF (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding precision, I've changed an instance of "{{convert|120|km/h|1|abbr=on}}" (120 km/h (74.6 mph)) to "{{convert|120|km/h|0|abbr=on}}" (120 km/h (75 mph)), as the converted value shouldn't be more precise than the source per MOS:CONVERSIONS. Tim PF (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, OK, I'll watch the values I'm putting in :) I agree for certain on the 25,000V issue, 5 figure numbers certainly need changing to the correct term (in this case kV as you stated), and I would never put 25,000V. Lukeno94 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rail gauge

Hi, regarding the rail gauge - for a British locomotive, it's better to put |gauge={{railgauge|ussg}} than |gauge={{railgauge|sg}} - that way, it shows as 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) with the imperial units first. There are two reasons for this (i) it's consistent with (say) a driving wheel diameter of 6 ft 8 in (2,030 mm); and (ii) it puts the sourceable figure first - sources (especially the loco's design drawings) are less likely to quote the metric figure. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense, I shall bear this in mind in future. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi VanishedUser sdu8asdasd.

One of your recent edits on GER Class T19 caused a 'Cite Error'. I suggest using the "Show preview" button before the "Save page" button. The offending edit was this one. I've fixed it, (changed </reference> back to </ref>) so no big problem. :-)
• However, could you also please use an edit summary? ('Template' Message follows ↓)

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. - Happy Editing! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 22:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of an edit summary, usually all I've done is added the conversion tables in, which are obvious and (in theory at least) don't need the summaries so much. I knew there was a cite error, I just had no idea to fix it, so thank you for doing so. :) Lukeno94 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. If you are often doing the same/similar edits you can copy/paste the summary text from your previous edit summaries on your contributions page. I often do this, but I also often paste any template I am adding into my edit summaries. A bit of overkill, but useful. If you paste a basic {{convert|km|m}} into your summary, it is there for future use.
• As for Cite Errors, or other problems, there are various help forums ie. the Wikipedia:Help desk, and pages like WP:Referencing for beginners on WP. That particular error comes up on Category:Pages with missing references list, and very experienced editors(over 200,000 edits!) are leaving errors behind themselves too! If you find that you have really stuffed up a page, (not even 'Show preview' can show all problems, especially if you are editing a section not the full page) then I would suggest a quick self-revert. If you need help with a 'problem' like that, and I am on-line you can contact me on my talk page. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 01:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, until recently you'd mainly been adding missing values to an existing {{Infobox locomotive}}. I notice that you are now adding the infobox to articles which previously didn't have them, as here - this is fine in principle, but please be careful which parameters you are using. I assume that you've copied a blank template from somewhere, but one of those that you've copied has itself got errors, because I've seen you use the parameter |cylinders=, which isn't recognised - it should be |cylindercount=.

There are three "standard" blank copies of the template on its documentation page - one each for steam, Diesel and electric. If you go to Template:Infobox locomotive#Examples you'll see these three blanks, which you can copy&paste, then remove the parameters which are not required (such as |tenderweight= for a tank loco). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't copied the template, what happened there was me mis-remembering what the correct value was - if you look at the more recent ones, I have realized what it is actually. However, copying those templates (which I was already aware of) seems like a good idea to me and is something I may well do in future. I'd have gone back and fixed my mistake, except I couldn't remember where I'd started going wrong and felt that simply working with correct values on those that had not got any infoboxes was more important than fixing one error, as it wasn't table-destroying or anything. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to TRAXX, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

Your recent edits to TRAXX introduced at least one error, and other undesirable features, which I have corrected (with some other minor changes):

• Wrong inference: The power output for the Multi-system locomotives is only lower for 1.5 kV supplies; the higher figure is applicable for 3 kV DC as well as both AC supplies.
• Too much precision:
  • "tractiveeffort = {{convert|270|-|300|kN|0|abbr=on}}" generates a 5-significant figure result tractiveeffort = 270–300 kN (60,698–67,443 lb_f); best to let it default to automatic precision: tractiveeffort = 270–300 kN (61,000–67,000 lb_f).
  • Conversely, omitting it for "length = {{convert|18.900|m|ftin|abbr=on}}" arguably gives too much precision: length = 18.900 m (62 ft 0.1 in), rather than length = 18.900 m (62 ft 0 in).
• Using the preview button should have showed up that "topspeed = {{convert|140|km/h|0abbr=on}}" gave topspeed = 140 kilometres per hour (87 mph)^*, rather than the topspeed = 140 km/h (87 mph) that you probably intended.

Tim PF (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice job on cleaning up the Megan and Liz article back in April! Royalbroil 03:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the user has been confirmed as a sock of a banned editor and in-line with WP:DENY, I am proposing to tag the following pages created by this account :

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 2

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of America's Next Top Model contestants

for deletion under CSD G5, I am letting you know as you have made a contribution to the page, if you do not want me to then please let me know on my talk page or at the ANI. Mtking ^(edits) 23:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about the AfD page and NOT the article. The sock nominated the America's Next Top Model pages for deletion in order to continue his disruption related to Mixed martial arts. Mtking ^(edits) 08:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was being a tad stupid and didn't really read that properly. I have no issues with removing those AfDs, in fact I voiced my opinion that the nominator should have some kind of sanction IN one of the AfDs. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You may find this IP editor's talk-page on the French wiki interesting: 81.93.6.149. This article is very clearly a hoax. This is an IP editor who attests to be a knowledgable uninvolved party, but has multiple spam and advertising warnings and IP blocks on the French wiki. In my mind, this account likely belongs to an advertising company of some sort. Certainly they are being incincere, providing of course that there is more than one of them at all. Don't you agree? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree now that at least that IP is promoting a hoax. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you were a part of the Winter Storm Athena/2012-13 U.S. winter storm season fiasco. So, I thought you would like to stop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutus and offer your input. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Snell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Snell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

uk.soccerway.com stats has a mistake. It says that Akira Toshima played and goaled on 4 September 2011 (JEF United v Tokyo Verdy). But it is a mistake. Player and scorer is #31-Hideo Oshima (大島秀夫), not #32-Akira Toshima (戸島章). Sources; (in English) J. League official site, (in Japanese) JEF United official site, (in Japanese) Tokyo Verdy official site, www.transfermarkt. If you change stats, please check some official site (e.g. league site, club site) well too, not only an unofficial site. Thanks. --Japan Football (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there - I have reverted your bundling as it was completely inappropriate. Ideally it should be done by the AFD creator, and it cerainly shouldn't be done after the discussion has started. Please nominate seperately and properly. GiantSnowman 13:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lukeno94, thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and God‎. You noted that it's not good procedure to nominate articles for deletion so quickly. I can see why that would be, and I know that lots of Wikipedia policies put forward that view. The problem is, I didn't like to leave the article unremarked upon. Policy also advises against maintenance tagging so soon after creation - so I'm wondering, what is the appropriate way to go in situations like this? Is watchlisting the article and coming back to it later the only thing we can really do? --Noiratsi (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say that watchlisting it for a day or two before nominating it would've been the best policy - bearing in mind that 5 minutes after creation, the original author may still be working on it. One of the statements on the guide to deletion is: before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

For all you do!! Have a wonderful HOLIDAY!!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

hi, thanks for getting in touch about the above. I wasn't aware there was such a way/thing as a multi afd. I've always used the automated tools to nominate pages for deletion and tbh in my four year of editing this is the only occasion that springs to mind where I've found cause to nominate so many related articles. I'm guessing such a thing as multi afds exist? next time I'll be sure to read up on it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC) 

Yep, if you read the Multi AfD section of the AfD article, that'll tell you what to do. (You can always use the tools to start one, and then add in other articles as appropriate). Glad I've been a help! Lukeno94 (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Luke, regarding List of films featuring anthromorphic insects, I think outright deletion is an acceptable option because it has not been linked anywhere else on Wikipedia, it is not likely to be a term searched for, and it is misspelled (anthromorphic instead of anthropomorphic). If I had the time or interest, I would create the more general list featuring anthropomorphic characters. I'm the one who created List of films featuring diabetes and List of films featuring home invasions, and I defended both articles at AfD, so I am hardly deletion-happy. :) However, I'd rather that a good list be created than a meager one that "salvages" these four film titles whose grouping was not in the public eye in the first place. My proposal for "See also" sections at each film's article was to be an interim solution until someone goes ahead with that more general list. I have my own goals for such lists—working on List of films featuring surveillance nowadays—but this topic is not one of them for me. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure where you got the impression that I thought you were deletion-happy, but even if this article contains four things, they would need to be in the proposed article. I don't particularly have the time or will to set up the list either, which is why I suggested someone from the Films WikiProject would sort it. (although I haven't sent them a message directly) Lukeno94 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I agree these items would go in such a list. I just wanted to explain my rationale since there is sometimes an overarching deletionist vs. inclusionist mentality in AfD processes. I personally avoid such labels. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably notoriously bad at switching between both depending on which day I'm commenting on AfDs... :) Lukeno94 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I closed the AfD due to lack of deletion arguments. I withdrew my nomination, but it looks like it would have been "keep" anyway. I think the best approach at this point is to convert the list to List of films featuring insects, which can include the current examples and more. What do you think? I started a discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting your useful reference edits; there's a persistent IP vandal (121..... changes all the time) who had added a whole bunch of made up claptrap. Is there a quick way to restore your edits?  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not that I'm aware of - and I'm inclined to go and get that article semi-protected, because I'm sick to death of reverting vandalism there! Nothing beats the Honda Civic article though, where I restored half of it after a phoney "plagiarism" deletion! At least that was only once. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll run it through reflinks again, I'm pretty sure that's all you undid. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for your patience. I reported some of the IPs, but it takes so much longer to block them than just reverting. I wish one could get blocking privileges in certain articles, I would love to be able to block IPs from articles about cars which have lots of Fanboys. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  08:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Lukeno94. My review of this page was a page curation of new pages. That's a different activity from assigning importance and quality ratings, which I personally tend not to get involved in. Hope that helps. Cheers-- --Lockley (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I see, thanks for clearing that up :) Lukeno94 (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Luke, I think you misunderstood my comment: you were in fact correct, the thread came too soon. The IP editor who saw that there so many notices on the talk page should have concluded that we were on it. So your first comment was just fine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't fully realize, but it's more my self-deprecating sense of humour more than anything else. I appreciate the concern though :) Lukeno94 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how that AFD will end in a keep, so let's start the next conversation. I like the two sources you found. I also found this from The London Magazine, this from The Independent, this from Vogue and this from The Daily Mail. I would say he is clearly notable and deserving of an article here. More than enough significant coverage. Stalwart111 12:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail is obviously not a reliable source, but it is certainly usable to add beef to the article. The Vogue would work, as even I know it's a reasonably reputable fashionable magazine! Once that AfD closes, I'm more than willing to attempt to recreate the article on this person, and I suggest that you tidy up whatever loose ends I leave (for some strange reason, I'm not an expert on writing articles about hairdressers :p). This might be one of the odder AfD outcomes! Lukeno94 (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nor am I - would be a first for me. Isn't there a WP:WikiProject Hairdressing that can help us? Ha ha. Agree with you on sources - there are actually a few different articles from Vogue. Looking forward to it though. Stalwart111 12:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, but there is WP:WikiProject Fashion of course - they might help. Stalwart111 12:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• On a quick check he looks notable to me. If the mood strikes me I will create a stub to fill the void left by the deletion of the other Wood. Till someone does I reken salt is in order. A good faithed article on someone else with quickly disolve the salt. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Don't salt it, we should probably knock up the article in one of our userspaces and move it the moment the AfD closes. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree - we should be able to move fast enough. Stalwart111 13:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going ahead and I'm going to draft up something in my sandbox. Are other users allowed to edit it if it's in my sandbox? (obviously I give you and Duffbeer permission to, if that's needed) Lukeno94 (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, see WP:NOBAN. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Redrose - I'm drafting up a very basic article now. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion was closed so I immediately moved the draft to Josh Wood. I moved it rather than cut-paste to retain the editing history. Stalwart111 10:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Great, thanks, and I'm glad we were able to sort this! :) Lukeno94 (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)