User talk:Luxure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Weatherboxes[edit]

Why do we need separate weatherbox templates when they are only used in one article each? What's wrong with simply adding the weatherbox to the article, as was the case before creation of the templates? Single-use templates rarely survive TfD. --AussieLegend () 13:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean by TfD, but it does reduce the size of the article and should it be vandalised the weather stats are harder to change. Luxure (talk)
TfD refers to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. The reduction in article size is inconsequential and templates can be vandalised as easily as articles can be. --AussieLegend () 10:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The templates are harder to find than the article itself, thus 'harder' to vandalise. What do you propose? Luxure (talk)
We don't create articles or templates to hinder vandalism. The templates should be merged back into the articles and then be deleted. You can use {{db-author}} to do that. --AussieLegend () 08:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Place on the coast[edit]

For a moment I though you might live in Kiama; I do. But your recent contribs history shows edits to articles on lots of other Australian places too. Tony (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Luxure, your email isn't yet enabled. If you do live locally, it would be nice to catch up over a coffee in K. Tony (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Newcastle Weatherbox[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Newcastle Weatherbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. AussieLegend () 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

West Australian Current[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of West Australian Current, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/640073/West-Australian-Current.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your post to my talk page[edit]

I was recommending a short block for user Gtrbolivar, who was engaging in personal attacks. I was not recommending a block for you. However, it is not a good idea to refer to material as defamatory or libelous. That can be seen as an implied legal threat, so use some other words, such as incorrect or erroneous. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

कुत्ते कमिने[edit]

तुझे मे अखिरी बार सम्झाता हु... Do not revert my edit. I will also revering ur edit What do you think of yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.1.143 (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Satellizer look above, calling me dog or something :L Luxure (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Hilmir hrafn bachmann[edit]

Hello Luxure. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Hilmir hrafn bachmann, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Incorrect CSD tag. A7 would be more appropriate. Thank you. Osarius - Want a chat? 11:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Luxure. You have new messages at Osarius's talk page.
Message added 11:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Osarius - Want a chat? 11:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you stop the other guy ?[edit]

I did give reason and summary. What are you talking about? The article "Hadith of Position" is biased and one sided and this guy "Faiz Haider" keeps removing the Sunni opinion. He is censoring.

--Editor1390 (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox PhilGenChamp[edit]

I am very puzzled by this edit - tagging as nonsense suggests that you haven't a clue about templates. But putting the db tag within <noinclude> suggests that you know all about them. Please explain. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh... he used the "no information" reason on arguably a wrong use of CSD-T3. –HTD 12:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it is nonsensical User:RHaworth and HTD is not making sense either. Luxure (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly HTD's comment is incomprehensible. But, I regret to say that Luxure has confirmed my "not a clue" imputation. Have you looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox PhilGenChamp and looked at how it is used in any of those articles? Please reply. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What I meant whas that he used the CSD-T3 reasoning wrongly. This template isn't... hardcoded. –HTD 12:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

I don't assume that you are in the "pro-Slavic" camp, but Stevepeterson does, that's why I had to specifically exclude you from the list of editors who support a WP:NPOV wording. My apologies if my wording was vague and my intentions unclear. --Taivo (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries apologies accepted :) Luxure (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Contribs[edit]

Deleted contributions means edits that have been redacted and so hidden from public view, which can be seen only by administrators. If you made any deleted contributions, they are "not yours" in the sense that you had no right to make them. They not only don't belong to you; they don't even belong to the community. They have been hidden from public view as disruptive. You probably don't have any deleted contributions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Robert, it pains me to see you say "probably" when the tools to give a more specific answer are available to you. This report shows you that 35 edits by Luxure have been deleted. I will not embarrass him by going into details - some of them as just as innocent as the 206 edits of yours that have been deleted. As to edits in that curious intermediate state that you call redacted, Luxure's contribs history is not very long, it would only take you a moment to check that he definitely does not any. They show up very clearly as in this example. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering why 35 of my edits were removed. Could you please elaborate? Luxure (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on my talk page each of my 35 redacted edits? I would like to know Luxure (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no need to ask in two places - use {{talkback}} if you want a quick response. And new messages go at the bottom of a talk page.
You ought to know perfectly well what those 35 edits were. Searching this report for "notification" should remind you of two of them. This page gives an hint of most of the others - does template: … Weatherbox suggest anything to you? If you want the minute detail, I am willing to email you a copy of your deleted contributions report - read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so the majority were Templates for single use weatherboxes and 2 regarding speedy deletion? Luxure (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For strict accuracy: 2 were speedy deletion where you notified the creator; one was Talk:Hunited Quingdom which, since it was created by an IP address, did not need notification; and all the rest were those <expletive deleted> weatherboxes - with a spurious capital W on "weather". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok =, at least they aren't serious, right? And how is the capital W on Weatherboxes 'spurious'? Luxure (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't bite the newcomers, thanks for your help and info, even if you were sighing as you were writing the comments the whole time. Luxure (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sighing I will admit to - would anybody be surprised that I should sigh at this? Biting I deny completely - which of my remarks do you consider mordant? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the change from Jewish to Zionist[edit]

Hi, I don't understand who [how?] my edit in Sabotage could be nonconstructive, I think that if the change was from Zionist to Jewish, it could be then be described as nonconstructive. Yes, the train line was sabotaged by Jewish forces, but they were doing so for the sake of Zionism. In addition to that, some Jewish groups reject the whole Idea of Zionism; so I think It is better to emphasize the idea that was the reason for the acts of these forces, not their religion. -- محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't explain why do you think my edit "appeared" nonconstructive. Those forces were Jewish in majority, but they were also Zionist, weren't they? That is the reason they did what they did and that is the reason they came to Palestine in the first place, are you disputing this?--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
And American forces are capitalist forces, but we still refer to them as American forces Luxure (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
No, American forces are not capitalist forces, America as a state is capitalist. One could be a socialist and still join the American army, and one could be an atheist of Jewish ancestry and join the Zionist forces, that is why I think it is better to describe them as Zionist, as this was the common attribute among each and everyone of them. Would we be describing the colonial forces that came to America as just Christian forces, or we refer to them as colonial forces? I think the second is the correct choice; since they are there to colonize the place, not because they are Christians; many would say that they have done so because their religion asks them to do that, others of the same religion would disagree. So there are two reasons: 1. They were not all Jews. 2. Other Jews reject the Idea of Zionism, and so we mustn't associate the acts of a group of people to an ideology that is not agreed upon as the ideology that really drove those people.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you put a good point in. Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim that they were Zionist? (A simple Yes or No would suffice, preferably, if you can find sources, 3; one from an Arabic/Muslim site, one from a Jewish site and one from a Western/unallied site) The main reason I want sources is so another editor who views the article can see it is backed up by reputable sources and as such cannot remove it, as I have done to you. I would also like to thank you for arguing this peacefullyLuxure (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My User Page[edit]

Please do not edit my User Page! Neatsfoot (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)