User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd

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 Wikipedia? 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

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

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

It wasnt Arabic. u know nothing about the East.--۝ ۝ (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Hebrew then. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether I know nothing about the East, you still violated copyright laws. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship.2FPiotrus_3.E2.80.8E_edit_warring. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you managed to find news coverage for Pititsa hill climb‎, which is helpful, now we know the race actually exists. I still think it's not notable enough, so I listed it at Articles for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pititsa hill climb. I thought I should let you know. Markussep ^Talk 16:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have some pie on me...hugs and kisses! MONGO 16:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting choice of message, but I harbour no hard feelings towards you MONGO, at least you don't seem to have an ulterior motive. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inspight of reference links to the content lot of content has been removed without review.

I feel you should review the reference properly before deleting the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.61.18 (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't need to; you're referencing Wikipedia in one, and the other is no evidence of notability. These places need Wikipedia articles before being added. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, I didn't intend to appear that I was accusing you of condoning the lack of action there, although I can see why my edit made it look as if I was criticising your comment with my "let's just dispense with...." remark. That was a rhetorical device, not aimed at you. You are quite correct in everything you say. Rgds, Leaky Caldron 11:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of the AE report where there are indirect references to you. --walkee^talkee 13:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment here [1] and the fact that you're trying to be fair. How about we bury the hatchet? Just... please, next time, take a pause and proof read your comments before you accuse someone of doing or being capable of carrying out some pretty vile acts, even if only unintentionally by implication. I've really been subject of this kind of behavior by these people, I know what it's like, and I get really offended that someone could just blithely accuse me of doing such things (and it really smarts if you've been subject to it, for someone to accuse you of doing it). Also, pause and don't take anon IPs words at face value. If you really want to I can write you a private email and explain in detail why that post was full of lies. Diffs are just links. In and of themselves are not proof of anything. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to bury the hatchet, so to speak, because I don't like holding grudges/people holding grudges, but I'm not really interested in the private email. In terms of off-wiki harassment, I'm well aware what that's like, as a photograph of me was used as an attack image at ED, for example (this was later taken down). As I stated, I would usually be the first to remove such a post from an IP, if it didn't seem to be well backed up (and what I read in the diffs corroborated the linked statements). It's probably best that this is just left behind now, although it would be good if FPaS publicly recognized that they may need to be a little more careful in their actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you reverted my edits; You have obviously not read their facebook pages. Christoffer confirmed Alex' departure on facebook. Please read the statement from Alex https://www.facebook.com/alexandersvenningson?fref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMachaku (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Facebook does not count as a reliable source, and you did not provide that source in your change on the Dead by April page. Please wait for the band's official announcement (or an announcement in an actual reliable source) before making the change again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! My bad about the Ami-centric! It also contradicts what else I said. Further, my apology that it read as an attack; 'didn't intend that.

I do have a major problem with the issue of editors, from what you said obviously NOT you, discounting and often trying to delete articles or info based on the info having no connection to USA or being based in a culture that doesn't use English. One of my pet peeves, e.g., which IMO is an embarrassment to WP is when talking about international films, editors refer to the country's film awards as "the American Oscars." Just yesterday I ran across s.o. wanting to delete an article about a current (I think) MP of a country. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't disagree that there is a bias towards English "things", but that is only natural for an English encyclopedia, particularly as most people are simply incapable of making any judgements based on a foreign-language source. I suggest you make sure that your tone is a little more moderate in future, and that you ensure you include reliable sources to back up your position. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The shared army service bit is very well known, mentioned a bunch of places. Basic search brought up:

• here and,
• here

- regards --Falcadore (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not doubting that bit, but it is pretty trivial (especially in the way it was written). The comment was more aimed at the dates for Brock's military service, which I couldn't verify (only that he had completed military service, which, on its own, is not notable without being in the context it was originally written) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you sure User:Freshacconci is a sockpuppet? Quis separabit? 20:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that user. User:KoreanLuck was the sockpuppet. I'm not quite sure how you read "Reverted 1 edit by Freshacconci (talk): Made by a sockpuppet, that's why." after "Reverted 1 edit by Lukeno94 (talk): Unexplained revert; the previous edits appear sound." as implying Freshacconi is a sock. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I misread it. Quis separabit? 20:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tis OK. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, oops. I thought I was reverting the Costa Rican one. Though in many ways the Omani one seems odder, given that there seems to be consensus that it is fully professional at Talk. Nfitz (talk)

• The Costa Rican one is also under discussion, so I strongly suggest you self-revert, and wait until consensus falls one way or another. There's no consensus yet for the Omani one either - two of us have said that there's no evidence yet for it being fully professional, whilst one person thinks it might be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion about Costa Rica being fully professional is here JMHamo (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lukeno, I'm sorry I'm already adding the sources to the capacities. I'm just helping to update the capacities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staafros1 (talk • contribs)

• A lot of the sources you are using do not comply with WP:RS, and at times, you are changing information that is already reliably sourced in articles. If you don't stop this, I'm afraid I will have little choice but to request a block, particularly given the rate at which you are making these changes, User:Staafros1. I appreciate what you are doing, but it's not helpful at the moment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears my mentioning of turbo charged snowmobiles got edit or deleted? They do have that feature. Was that inappropriate what I did? Just trying to learn. Regards,

Karl Shoemaker (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First things first, Karl: I strongly suggest you remove that URL from your signature, as you are likely to be blocked as a promotional account if you don't. Secondly; if you're talking about this edit, then you will see that I requested you add a source for your information. Thirdly, I hope you take these two things to heart, and keep editing, because you're not being unconstructive from what I can see :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...for the ringing endorsement ("BMK, for their faults ... is a net positive"). I may run for admin now!! <g> BMK (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it may not have been the best wording, but I feel it is a valid comment. You have a reputation for being combative with some people, and of not mincing words; to some people, that has made you one of their "hit list", so to speak. Which means that they will immediately overlook anything good that you do. And there are definitely a lot of people who would make worse admins than you, although I wouldn't expect an RfA to pass (too many "haters", so to speak). :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I didn't mean to criticize you at all, since it was a pretty accurate statement, I think. And FTR, I would never run for admin, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't be confirmed. (If you see me standing for admin, you might want to have someone check to see if my account's been compromised, or if I've taken leave of my senses.) BMK (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't in the best state of mind last night, so I'm not surprised I misinterpreted it a bit :) and I wouldn't expect you to run for admin either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your post(s) on WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Bearian, although I obviously wish those requests were all unnecessary :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

As I feel our exchange has been somewhat unfortunate, I've made a request for benevolent admin assistance [2]. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your responses. As you'll see I've tried to direct the discussion towards what I see as the underlying issues. Fyi, my reference to age on your talk page was only intended to recognize the age-related aspect of the challenges and pitfalls of online communication (for instance, there are always real people behind usernames/ips, and often we're hampered by the fact that we have very little idea who they really are). Also, there is now a section on the article talk page for discussion of the editorial role of the link -- I'd request you to comment there before removing the link again. Thank you, 86.173.146.3 (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lukeno94,
I know all about WP:DENY but I'd appreciate it if you would not remove or refactor comments left on my talk page. I can handle that myself, thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In most cases, I wouldn't, but given the abusive commentary by this user, I was just removing everything posted by their sock IPs in one go. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since going to allow two injustices, you could at least tell Maragm and company that the discussion in article Peter III of Aragon started on January 14 and therefore the previous edition is what I advocate. I'm tired of being accused of not respecting timeout.--EeuHP (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are the one who needs to discuss that with them, I'm afraid, if you still desire this change to happen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that his image his the change. The previous image is Pedro III de Aragón.jpg and they act as if it were the other way around. Anyway, leave. I see you are not willing.--EeuHP (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]