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)

Alpina

Hello,

Sorry for my bad English, I don't speak it very well.

You should be careful when removing sections about Alpina. It seems you do not know this brand. This company is really close to BMW. They have worked with BMW to develop diesel engines and catalysers in the 90s and mostly developped the 3.0 CSL in the 70s. BMW has used an Alpina engine in the first X5. Since the 2000s, Alpina cars are mostly built in BMW factories on BMW production lines (this means BMW does Alpina modifications for Alpina), thus these Alpinas are "factory cars". Since the 2000s too some Alpina cars are sold in North America by BMW : all these Alpinas have a BMW VIN (they have an Alpina VIN elsewhere). There is currently no BMW M7 because there is the Alpina B7 [3].

And all Alpinas keep the BMW warranty and the BMW logos since the creation of the company, on the contrary with the majority of tuning companies the BMW warranty is lost and BMW roundels are removed. And you can buy Alpinas only at BMW dealers. So please check sources before removing more content, Alpina is largely approved by BMW. Not totally official, but not unofficial at all. NemesisIII (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

• I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter how close the companies are, the fact of the matter is that Alpina are not part of BMW - just like Brabus are not part of Mercedes-Benz. It also doesn't matter if some North American BMW dealers opt to sell Alpinas or not, or whatever marketing decisions BMW make, or how the warranty works. The only time Alpina should be featured in the individual BMW car articles is when they actually continued production of a car when BMW axed it, like they did with the Z8. Likewise, Brabus would only be mentioned in Smart articles where they were involved in the official cars. The Alpina cars do justify their own articles though, at least for the most part. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• NemesisIII, you cannot just keep edit-warring to reinstate the text when it is completely and utterly unsourced. Being marketed by some BMW USA dealers does not make it a BMW product. We do not (or should not) include Rufs in Porsche articles, Brabuses in Mercedes-Benz articles, etc unless there is a very good reason to do so. The Alpina B7 needs its own article, not shoehorning into stock BMW car articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You still do not understand. What Alpina did with the Z8 in the US, they did excatly the same wit the E65 and are doing the same with the F01 and the F12 in North America. BMW of North America decided to add these Alpina models to the official line up, this is not some dealers who decided to import Alpinas. All Alpina vehicles have an Alpina VIN excepted those sold in NA: these one keep the BMW VIN and thus are fully BMWs [4]. If you don't know the topic and do not look for references, why do you remove sections about something you don't know ? I would never do this on fr.wp.

Then, you do this. Why ? If it were Wiesmann, Morgan or McLaren which used this engine (they actually used other BMW engines), would you delete this ? You wouldn't. Because these are automobile manufacturers. But Alpina is also an automobile manufacturer. So, once again, this edit is disruptive. And you didn't even checked what I did: I added the specs for the current BMW Alpina models, the current B6 and B7 are more powerful than the 2014 and 2012 ones. So you removed accurrate information. Just stop it. Here are a few sources, there dozens of articles you can find on the Internet: [5], [6].

NemesisIII (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

• NemesisIII, please make sure you're actually paying attention before throwing around claims like that. The edit to the BMW N63 page was not done by me, or any user with a username even close to mine - it's quite staggering that you're blaming me for that. And, for what it's worth, User:Ebyabe was right to revert you, as you failed to cite a single source for your changes.
• Regardless of that fact, your entire point about the VIN is a red herring. Anything with an Alpina VIN means that Alpina are being recognized as an independent manufacturer; anything with a BMW VIN means they're not. Regardless, the presence of a BMW VIN on a car that left the BMW factory as a BMW does not mean that the Alpina information should be located in that very article. Nor does a shipping deal for North American distribution suddenly transform the car into a BMW. Whilst the two companies are closely linked - just like Brabus and Mercedes-Benz - the Alpina cars are genuinely independently notable, and thus should have their own articles. Not sure why you're claiming that Alpina have continued E65 production, because I see 0 evidence of that. And even if they did, the B7 is still a genuinely different enough car to the 7 Series (hence why Alpina can have their own VIN) that it would belong in an Alpina B7 article, not the BMW E65 article. The Alpina Z8s were far less different, and amounted to just being softer versions of the Z8.
• Finally, en.wp and fr.wp are not run in the same way. Each has their different way of doing things. Sourcing is key here, and the WP:BURDEN is on anyone adding information into an article to provide sources for every part of it - even if it is re-adding in information. If you don't like that or won't follow that, then you're welcome to return to fr.wp. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, I am really sorry about the edit on the BMW N63 article. I was reading on my smartphone when I read this, so the screen was rather small and I suppose I just didn't see the name of the user and attributed the edit to you.
• This is not a shipping deal. This is a choice to add the car to the lineup. The North American B6s and B7s are entirely built by BMW like any other BMW, unlike the European B6s and B7s. BMW M cars are the same: the BMW M6 is a BMW built by BMW with BMW M specifications and sold by BMW, the BMW Alpina B6 is made by BMW with Alpina specifications and sold by BMW. The only difference: BMW M GmbH is owned by BMW. Both are official BMWs in North America. There, the 730d, the 640i, the B6, the M6, the B7 or the 760Li have exactly the same status. Actually, I wanted to say that Alpina did not continue the production of the E65, but the B7 was just another official model in the lineup like the Alpina V8 Roadster was. That's why they are fully BMWs (that's why they are the only Alpinas specced cars to have a BMW VIN number) although built with Alpina specs. The Alpina Z8 was not more different from the standard Z8 than the B7 from the 7 Series: both have a different engine, different gearbox, slightly different interior, different wheels and tires and suspension.
• Of course there should be sources in the article. But it is not me who added these sections, I only added some information. Sometimes without source indeed. I could have done this. But "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material." Has the verifiability of these information been challenged? Not until now, so deleting this without adding a "citation needed" a few days/weeks before is quite expeditious. NemesisIII (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

• Apology accepted. The point I think you're missing is that, regardless of where the cars are actually built, Alpina and BMW are separate companies owned by separate people. The fact that the American branch of BMW choose to act differently on occasion does not really change that - it's not uncommon for national dealers to market different things to the main company, but that doesn't make them officially sanctioned. I'm certainly not going to argue that it is a clear-cut case or that things are simple here; we both know that doing so would be stupid. The verifiability of the information is a secondary issue to this, as I am well within my rights to remove long-unsourced content that is barely relevant to the article. The BMW articles are, to be blunt, in a big mess right now (not that they are the only ones, but they are amongst the worst examples of globally-significant car articles I've seen), and they need a lot of tidying up, trimming down and cleaning up - the Alpina removals were only a small part of the cleanup job that I started with. What I will say is this; if we were to get proper articles on the individual Alpina models, as I believe is necessary/desirable (and I presume you'd agree on that front?), then a brief mention (a couple of sentences or so) of the Alpina cars in each article is probably justifiable - the same would go for the other noteworthy tuner cars perhaps, like the Hartge H50. The level of detail that some of these went into, however, isn't, in my opinion, appropriate for the main BMW model articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, rebadged cars or officially tuned cars do not get there own articles (something WP:CARS has upheld for some years). They are normally dealt with in the one page. For example, Nissan Terrano II also deals with the Ford Maverick rebadged version. Mercedes-Benz articles deal with the AMG tuned versions, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• For most tuned cars, I'd agree with that. But a lot of the Alpina model ranges are noteworthy on their own, just like Rufs - which also tend to get their own articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think we both agree with this: a lot of the Alpina models (to name a few, the B3, D3, B5, B10...) are noteworthy on their own and could get an article. Then only a brief mention of the Alpina cars in each BMW article is enough.
• I think we have one difference between our points of view. Are the E65 and F01 BMW Alpina B7 and F12 BMW Alpina B6 Gran Coupé (official American names) sold in North America officially tuned cars ? I think "yes", you think "no". Thus, as said OSX, from my point of view, these cars should be treated like any official version and have a section in the BMW article. For you, as you think "no", these cars are not official and thus should have a separate article. Still, the Alpina B7 Biturbo and the Alpina B6 Biturbo Gran Coupé (official names in Europe) are noteworthy on their own and could have their own article too (while the North American BMW Alpina B7 and BMW Alpina B6 Gran Coupé could have sections in the BMW articles).
• I suggest to do both. We can create an article about these E65 and F01 B7 and F12 B6. However, as these cars are "official" in the US and Canada, a sufficiently detailed section (about 10 lines or so and the engine data in a table) should be kept in the BMW E65, F01 and F12 articles, with a link to the detailed article. The section should be sufficiently detailed because even if there are many BMW tuners (such as Hartge or AC Schnitzer), none of their models are as much "official" as the Alpinas.
• Of course you are right to tidy the articles about BMW cars as it was needed, I can only thank you for this. But maybe you trim down too much ! NemesisIII (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

• It's always possible that I may well be wrong, and I thank you for being such a pleasant person to deal with (if I've been too snappy at any points, I must apologize; I'm very busy in real life at the moment, and a little stressed - getting ready to move will do that to you!) When things have calmed down a little bit for me, I fully intend to start some drafts on these Alpina cars, and probably on things like the Hartge B50 as well (which is fairly noteworthy for having the BMW M5 engines of the time crammed into a 3 Series). At this point, I'm willing to concede the "officialness" point on those particular articles if you're willing to redo the sections from scratch, with more neutral language and actual references. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your decision. I think it is the best solution to work like this. I also accept your apologies and must present my apologies if I have been too snappy too. It happens I am also very busy in real life at the moment, so I think I will write these sections in the following days or weeks. Of course I will try to do my best to add references, use neutral language and avoid language mistakes :) (remember that English is not my native language). NemesisIII (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

can you please provide your opinion on this matter please ? you are like me neither a liverpool or man united fan so your opinion should be neutral thank you :) Adnan (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh, I've had my fill of honours-related discussions for now, I'm afraid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

oh yea I understand man :) Adnan (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Chrysler

Hello, Lukeno. It seems that you have taken it upon yourself to update all instances of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to "Chrysler" under the banner of preventing "recentism." Please understand that Chrysler's official name is FCA US LLC, which is an abbreviation of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. You seem to be conflating the marque, Chrysler, with the manufacturer, FCA US LLC. FCA US LLC does, in fact, manufacture the vehicles belonging to the Chrysler marque. FCA US LLC is in turn owned by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, the international holding company. There is no company officially named Chrysler any longer, it is only the name of the marque.

Please see the relevant article and supporting citations for accurate information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler

"Chrysler Group LLC remained a subsidiary until December 15, 2014, when it was renamed FCA US LLC, to reflect the Fiat-Chrysler merger."

As you can see, this change occurred 6 months ago. I don't believe the concerns regarding "recentism," which generally focus on current events, outweigh the need for accuracy on Wikipedia.

I would appreciate if you corrected your edits to reflect the official name of the manufacturer.

Thank you. IamVoxNihili (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• FCA US LLC may be the official name of the holding firm, yes, but it is not yet the WP:COMMONNAME of Chrysler, which remains, well, Chrysler. Say FCA US LLC (or even just FCA) to a casual person, and they won't know who you're referring to. Say Chrysler, and they will. It's that simple. It's also not inaccurate to say Chrysler own Jeep, and it is consistent with the older articles where the cars were built prior to the FCA merger. Quite frankly, there's no real need to mention the owner of Jeep anyway, and most car articles for non-American companies don't do that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you linked me to a Wikipedia style article about article titles. What we're discussing relates to the body of the articles in question, not the title, and the guidance you reference is therefore inapposite. If you flip to the style article about names within the body itself, you'll find the following: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph...." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#First_mention). It is therefore clearly appropriate that the full, technical name of the manufacturer be provided within the lead paragraph. An appropriate compromise might be "FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler, manufactures X." You say that it is "not inaccurate to say Chrysler own (sic) Jeep" but frankly, I think we can do better than "not inaccurate." Let's be 100% accurate. IamVoxNihili (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Recall numbers

Hi Luke, I'm curious as to what you think suitable recall numbers would be. Note that this is not a net 20. Something to consider: how many of the oppose voters would sign a recall in 36 hours from now, if, by some miracle, my RfA were to pass? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC).

• I don't have a hard and fast number; but 20 just seems ridiculous, when you consider that the average discussion to ban someone on ANI doesn't even get close to that level. I would genuinely say I would rather someone be honest and say that they wouldn't consider recall at all unless it came from someone they particularly respect than to have that kind of arbitrary number (and yes, I am aware that you have that option listed as well, that's not my point.) And, frankly, anyone signing a recall form shortly after a RfA had passed should be ignored as per WP:POINT anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well maybe so. When I have thought about it sensible numbers to consider have been 5, 10 , 15 and 20. 5 has always seemed too small, you can always find 5 awkward people, or people with grudges (in fact a vociferous oppose vote is from someone I had just helped find a technical solution to avoid an edit war). Given the propensity of editors to organise off-site and the significant number of bad actors who have been shown to have drawers full of socks, I don't think 10 or 15 were safe from disruptive recalls. In the event of a legitimate recall the response would be more like an RfC/U than an AN/I.
  • I'm interested in the whole idea of recall, because there seems to me a significant gap in community accountability. This is obviously bad in itself, but it also pushes the accountability and hence power towards ArbCom, who, arguably, don't want it.
  • I also think that recall (if implemented) should be a uniform process. Having a group of admins who are afraid to act for fear of recall would not be a good thing.
  • All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
    

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commer FC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marques (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)