User talk:78.32.143.113/Archive 8

This 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.

Template:cite web usage

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to the template documentation, the "work" and "publisher" parameters have the following meanings:

work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.

publisher: Publisher, if any—for example if the website is hosted by a government service, educational institution, or company. (The publisher is not usually the name of the website, that is usually the work).

Hence a reference to something on, say, Volkswagen AG's website would be cited as "work=www.volkswagenag.com" and "publisher=Volkswagen AG". This seems pretty clear to me. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Din rated horsepower

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

So do you have some source that AUdi R8 is measured with DIN system? if not dont add those din rated things in new car articles, if you find link that tells otherwise then its ok , in Europe we have nowdays Europen Union standards and we use Watts --Typ932 ^T·C 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Give the source and stop adding that until you prove they use din method to measure kilowats, or do they measre ps and converts to kilowats?? you only need to give the source to your claims, then all can be happy... --Typ932 ^T·C 17:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"from the original Type 1" this surely was measured with DIN standard, the European Union standard was not invented those days... --Typ932 ^T·C 17:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont remove cn templates from Audi R8 article, if you dont give proper source those DIN claims will be deleted after some time --Typ932 ^T·C 12:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you stop adding wrong data, you give the source that they are 80/1269/EEC rated not DIN --Typ932 ^T·C 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you insist addind DIN claims, please give proper source, anyway I think DIN is not used anymore we have European standards nowadays --Typ932 ^T·C 11:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Im not makin my own standards, DIN is not anymore standard in Europe and unless you give proper source that DIN is authoring European standards they can go,, try to find prooer source for you claims, and now it says its RATED not AUTHORED, you should make your mind how is DIN involved in power ratings in current measurements. --Typ932 ^T·C 12:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused - as I've said on the article talk page, the brochure states the engines are rated according to 80/1269/EEC, which is not a DIN standard as such. What exactly is DIN's involvement in this? Did they actually perform the testing? Is there a source to verify this? In any case, IMHO, it's the standard used to measure power output that is the important point, not the organisation that may or may not have been involved it the actual measurement. As long as the standard is adhered to, it shouldn't matter who did it. Letdorf (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

Ongoing concerns with your communication level

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi 78.32.143.113, please respond to Letdorf's request above for the third opinion on VWAG. I was coming here to ask you the exact same thing. I suggest you get the situation resolved before making any more such edits. I'll be interested in your response to the note about {{cite web}} usage as well. You make a lot of productive edits so I'd hate to have to block you, but this is a collaborative website and positive communication is crucial here. You can't just insist on your own version forever, so let's get the issues settled please. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Letdorf (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

Talkback

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, 78.32.143.113. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#78.32.143.113.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning re your behaviour

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello 78.32, for quite some time now I have been following an ongoing series of disputes between yourself and among others, User:Letdorf. Letdorf has made many attempts to resolve these disputes but although you initially discussed the issues, you have for several months now seemed to just revert the changes you do not like without discussion. Let me make clear here that reverting with just an edit summary is not considered "discussion" when you do it more than once, unless it is something like very clear vandalism. You're not discussing your edits, you're not providing sources to support your changes, and you're edit-warring to keep your preferred version. Any one of those alone might be OK, but taken together, they constitute a problem.

So let me make it more clear. For the Volkswagen AG/VW Automotive Group/VWAG issue; for wording conventions around comglomerate/concern; and for usage of template parameters such as publisher= and work=; - gain consensus for your desired change on each article talk page before you make the change. If I see you making more reverts in these areas without discussing first, I will remove your editing privileges for a time.

For your review, there are several handy links here. If you need more pointers to the evolution of this dispute, let me know. Thanks for your attention on this! Franamax (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

3.6 & 3.7 V8

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi I see that You're kinda insider when it comes to Audi so You perhaps will know why does 3.6 V8 PT from Audi V8 has higher both power and torque output comparing to 3.7 32V, it doesn't make sense to me, as it has greater displacement, bore x stroke and compression ratio, so why it's so?

Cheers

Shaman (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC Elstree Centre

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for your changes to BBC Elstree Centre. However some of your changes were unconstructive as they removed productions filmed at BBC Elstree Centre, added in productions filmed at Elstree Studios (Shenley Road) and also added three studios which are not at BBC Elstree Centre. I have attempted to fix these.

Enbytv (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

September 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome!

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Go-Tsumaroki 21:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Also please keep in mind that wrongly accusing other editors of vandalism, as you did here, can be considered a personal attack. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Boaty McBoatface have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Boaty McBoatface was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://Twitter.com/BoatyMcBoatface) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Links to draft articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to KaiOS. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh, wasn't aware of that. Thanks for heads up, appreciate your help. --78.32.143.113 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Simon Reeve (British TV presenter) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Simon Reeve (British TV presenter) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://Twitter.com/simon_reeve) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

The Twitter link was already in the article (and had been there for a long period of time), I merely changed the URL to LinkLanguage. The Twitter link is actually the OFFICIAL site of the subject matter, namely Simon Reeve (British TV presenter) - so DOES comply with official WP policies on external links. Best regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to About Face: Veterans Against the War have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to About Face: Veterans Against the War was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://TheRagBlog.blogspot.com/search/label/IVAW) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

That link was already there in the article. I merely changed it to LinkLanguage for eligibility. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Template:British-Army-stub has a new comment

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Template:British-Army-stub. Thanks! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :-) 78.32.143.113 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:British-Army-stub (December 4)

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Idoghor Melody was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Template:British-Army-stub and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Template:British-Army-stub, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 78.32.143.113! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

RAF slang

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability in full before adding anything to this (or any article). An important extract is " The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." From that you will see that your accusation of vandalism is inappropriate. Please let me know if you want to talk anything through. Mark83 (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm GoneIn60. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Black Hole (roller coaster), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. I dropped a note about this on Talk:Black Hole (roller coaster) if you'd like to begin a discussion there. GoneIn60 (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Blatant LIE. My edit DID include valid inline citations to reliable sources which were contemporary with the timescale of when Black Hole was actually operating. I am personally extremely familiar with Black Hole, and other contemporaneous coasters at Alton Towers. My edit WAS constructive, accurate, factual, and FULLY SUPPORTED by various inline citations. --78.32.143.113 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We cannot accept original research, so it doesn't matter how "familiar" you think you are. Everything must be reliably published, and the defunct Theme Park Junkies fails WP:RS on multiple levels. It was a self-published, fan website which violates WP:RSSELF. It also contained user-generated content in violation of WP:USERG. And above all that, the entry you keep citing has poor spelling and grammar and looks like a random, public comment with no editorial oversight. I suggest you stop wholesale reverting and calling everything that opposes you a lie and vandalism. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you please stop calling edits you disagree with vandalism? It’s disingenuous at best and childish at worst. Please see WP:AGF. And when I am simply following Wikipedia policies and guidelines that just makes it all the more disappointing. Please take a moment to consider other editors’ positions and remember this is a collaborative project.

And I am fully aware that MoD is the correct capitalisation in prose. But not in urls. That is what I was referring to when I said your imposing your own stylistic preferences. Mark83 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Heliport, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Respectfully, the ORIGINAL edit was in BRITISH ENGLISH! So kindly get your facts correct. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. However, it would have been helpful if you had stated that in your edit summary when you originally made the change. We get many users on here who change the English variant simply because that's what they are familiar with who haven't checked to see which variant was originally used. BilCat (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Touche BilCat, but you could have also checked for yourself the original version before insisting on it being American English, when you actually had zero evidence to support your edit. Furthermore, the vast majority of 'global English' derrives from British English, which then went to the various Commonwealth countries all following British English. Anyway, my apologies for omitting that point in my edit summary - it was late at night for me! Kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right, and I often do, but it usually involves a lot of checking through diffs, as many times it's not made in the first edit. Since it was late for me too, I didn't check. On Wikipedia, the use of American vs. British/Commonwealth English is probably evenly split, especially since the US has the largest population of speakers of English as first language. We get many users who think Wikipedia should only use British English, and had Wikipedia been founded by British people, that's probably how it would be. But it wasn't, so we have ENGVAR instead. BilCat (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you forget about those pesky Indians (and other former British south Asian countries) who all use British English (or which their own variation is based legally on British English) (that is a 'tongue in cheek' comment, with humour, but also food for thought). Furthermore, the entire European Union, the United Nations, and the ISO are all using British English (albeit with Oxford English grammar). But yes, I accept that we all make mistakes sometimes, and I also accept that it is too easy to hide behind our blinkers sometimes! Anyway, best regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I clearly specified first language speakers in my comments, which aren't that high in India yet, but could have been but for anti-British shortsightedness when India gained its independence. If you want to include non-first language speakers, then countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and those in South America need to be included on the American English side, not to mention that Canada is bi-variantal! BilCat (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)