User talk:Spacecowboy420

Use of "whilst" in UK English

Hello, Spacecowboy420, I hope you are well. I am currently working to improve the article Wild Palms (band) which uses UK English. The article creator used the word "whilst" twice in the article in ways that look odd to my eye, but I'm not familiar enough with UK usage of the word to be sure whether it's correct or not. Would you mind taking a look?

(On an unrelated note, you may not be aware that it's preferred to archive conversations from one's talk page rather than simply blanking the page. Previous versions remain visible via the article history page, but blanking one's user talk page can create the appearance of having something to hide, which I doubt you intended. Help:Archiving a talk page has more information; if you have questions, feel free to visit the Teahouse for further assistance.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's still reasonably common (when being formal) to use the word "whilst" however, while is a totally acceptable alternative and I thought that there was some kind of policy/guideline that stated we should choose words that are acceptable for all forms of English, if there was a suitable term available. (I may be wrong about that policy, I will take a look) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I replied to you on my talk page. Thanks again for your help! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Another UK music article (why do I do this to myself)

Hello again! I recently created an article about the now-defunct Camden Crawl music festival, and have run into some issues with it. This is your personal invitation to join the discussion going on here about how to handle unwieldy lineup information. If this is outside your areas of interest, feel free to simply ignore. Happy editing, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look. Sorry, I only edit from Monday - Friday, so I didn't reply earlier. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, WP:TIND. Thanks for you contribution to the discussion! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing "Homophobia" section title on article

Hi, I reverted the section title being homophobic is different from being accused of being homophobic (which is what is being written in the article). To give an extreme example, a person who is accused of rape/murder, would not have the section titled "rapist"/"murderer" just because he is accused of it. Hope you understand. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that he is homophobic, but after second thoughts, "pretty clear" implies original research, so I agree with your revert. Besides anyone can read the article and judge for themselves. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It can get quite tricky when dealing with labels, especially with controversial figures which may attract supporters for/against them. I did play around with possibly going for "accusations/allegations of homophobia" but that seems to be a loaded title as well. What are your thoughts on that? Zhanzhao (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are enough really reliable sources that call them homophobic, then yes. If those sources aren't quite so strong in calling them homophobic, then controversy would be the safer option.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

CMS

I'm not done adding information to this article. This school has become notable in recent years. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I thought the normal way was to construct an article in your personal sandbox, and when it meets all the required criteria for a wikipedia article, then to create the article. That way people don't see a half made article and suggest it for deletion. Either way, I would suggest improving it kinda quickly, as a previously deleted article, it's probably going to have people (other than me) wanting it deleted again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Oeuvre in Jean Sibelius

Thank you, Spacecowboy, for your interest in the Jean Sibelius article. While I share your desire to simplify the level of language used in Wikipedia articles, I don't think it is grammatically correct to replace "the core of his oeuvre" by "the core of his works". A "core" can only be applied to a single entity. Furthermore, oeuvre is widely used to cover the sum of a composer's work. A quick look at the biographies of other composers reveals that it is used in connection with Wagner, Vaughan Williams, Mahler and Benjamin Britten. The sentence with your change now contains the word "works" twice: "The core of his works is his set of seven symphonies which, like his other major works..." which is not at all elegant. The sentence now needs to be rewritten to avoid repetition. I think you must agree the change you made was a backward step.--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is pretty ugly English to have works twice. I have reverted myself, if I can think of a nicer way to reword it, I will propose it on the talk page, so that editors who have put time and effort in the article can give their opinions. What can I say? I had to use a dictionary to find the meaning of the word "oeuvre" - so I guessed it was a reasonably obscure term. (either that, or I just need to read/learn a little more.) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

We all live and learn. It it is a fairly obscure term but is used quite a bit in art, music and literature. It is used similarly in French where in the singular it means the total work of an artist. Thanks for cooperating on this. I hope you will continue to take an interest in articles on classical music. Unfortunately there are not more than a handful of us who contribute to any extent. Let me know if I can help you in any with with your own articles.--Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That's my main motivation in editing wikipedia, I tend to edit a lot of articles that I know nothing about and end up learning something new. I think that is probably the first classical music related article that I've edited, but if I find myself on one in the future, I will keep your offer in mind. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Chavs

Can't see that File:Glasgow_youths_4_06.jpg is "already in use on another article on wikipedia" - from the links on the image page it's currently being used on talk pages at Talk:Ned (Scottish) and Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/New images/Archives/March and April 2006, and some foreign-language Wikipedia articles about drinking in public. By all means cut the cartoon while it's being discussed, but we should not be presenting a photo of three Scottish kids as "typical chavs". --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, it was used in the past, but not right now. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Mannam/Shinchonji/Lee Man-hee

Hi, I've been checking back on old articles I've contributed to. It looks like the pages on Shinchonji and Lee Man-hee have been sanitised of all mention of controversy, or even each other. Lee is referred to as a "peace activist" with no mention of the church through which he operates. I looked through the Talk pages for both, and I think it would be a good idea to start pushing to get both back in order, with reputable sources. Seeing how you had contributed to the discussion, I wanted to give you a heads up in advance. Junganghansik (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I will take a look at those articles. There were a few accounts banned that were removing content from those articles, I imagine it's the same person with a new account/IP. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I just caught a user Lura1234 vandalising the SCJ page. I reverted it back to a previous edit, but it might merit some extra attention. Junganghansik (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't paid much attention to those articles recently, but given the vandalism, I will keep an eye on them, thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

list of fastest motorcycles

Can you look at this the talk page of the list of fastest motorcyles .Not sure who contact I know you as well have had problems from dennis bratland. I think this guy is doing this because I spoke against him and is now doing this. Or at least tell me who to contact sorry to post to you talk page I do not know how to just message someone. 72bikers (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Good timing! I was just posting on that talk page. I'm not 100% sure, and while I'm not sure if it counts as stock or not, if it's not street legal, then it doesn't belong on the list. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your response. I did not want to get into some drawn out debate with someone not adhering to there own rules. You made some valid points on what is street legal as well. But in there reference it did clearly state not street legal to achieve those results. 72bikers (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

With the source stating "track only" it seems pretty clear cut that it shouldn't be on that list. I'm sure you're aware that Dennis isn't the easiest guy to deal with. He's been here a long long time and has put a lot of work into these articles, which is great - but he also gets rather hard to reason with, if he doesn't agree with your edits. I've found that sticking to clear policy and inviting opinions from other editors, is the easiest way to deal with stubborn editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty new to this but yes found that out right away. I do not mean to attack anyone or to speak badly of anyone. But It seem like he introduced himself from my early start so that I would be led to believe that he was a authority. And I would need his approval on anything I posted. And when spoke of consensus his trumped all. 72bikers (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's very similar to my experience. When I edited a motorcycle related article another editor said something like "we should check with Dennis" - while I don't mind being polite and asking the opinion of more experienced editors, I won't be treated like a little kid by someone who thinks they own the motorcycle related articles, just because he's been here a long time. But, I will try to be fair, if there is a good edit, I will respect it, no matter who makes it. I don't see it as a big problem, every time he has tried to boss people around in the last month or so, virtually every single other editor has told him he is wrong. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Rik, Stephen

I'll leave that link there for now. Even when looking for the earlier link it was hard to find, and then spot. But it is up there, in the 1990's section. [What not to link] Dave Rave (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice that is was already in the 1990's section. I don't mind if it stays or goes, so if you wanna remove it, please feel free. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Aprilia RSV4

can you take a look at the Aprilia RSV4 page. There is a reference there that needs fixed and not quite sure how. 72bikers (talk • contribs) 04:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert at references. (actually, I'm not an expert at much on wikipedia) but I will take a look and see if it is something I can fix. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

which reference is broken? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Its not broken it just going across the whole screen cant miss it maybe I will ask pete. 72bikers (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that different browsers display references differently. I couldn't see it...but then again, I'm using an old PC in my office, with a tiny screen, so I dunno what other people see. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you see a difference now? before the reference went across half the page into the info box. 72bikers (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your interaction ban

I think I'm going to say "no violation" here. As you note, it's not a violation of the letter of the law, and given the details, I don't want to say that it's a violation of the spirit. If you check the page history, you'll see that he's edited the article several times before — it's plausible that he already had the article on his watchlist and merely did what he would have done had anyone else done the same as you did. So basically, while it's quite possible that you're right, there's an easy alternative explanation, and people shouldn't be getting blocked for spirit-of-interaction-ban violations when there's an easy alternative explanation. If he were stalking you, immediately following your edit with an AFD nomination of a page he'd never before edited, I'd be speaking quite differently.

Thanks for approaching this situation the way you did, by the way. From the admin's point of view, this is the ideal kind of report: calm and peaceful, sufficient links provided so I don't have to go looking, and you acknowledge the "weakness" of the letter-of-the-law nonviolation rather than pretending that he was in the wrong in every possible way. If you seek further input, or request future ban enforcement, in the future, please do just like you've done here. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't read his mind, so it's maybe safer (for my sanity) to assume it was a genuine edit, with no motivations related to me having edited the article. And thanks for taking a look at it, it's maybe easier for all involved to send a quick message to an admin, rather than deal with the huge drama that is associated with ANI reports. I would say that I will contact you the next time this happens, but hopefully there isn't a next time. I'm sure the other parties involved are just as sick of this as me. thanks again Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Further details in this comment from Drmies, who came to my talk page after I requested outside input. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Funny, Nyttend, how we agree and yet do not totally agree. We are truly in a "judgment" area here, and right now I have a bit less faith in Dennis's judgment here: it smells too much like skirting around the ban. But it's a smell--there's no evidence, as you correctly suggest. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you help?

72bikers is running into stormy waters and I'm having trouble working out what's going on. He feels he's been harassed, but I'm not seeing how. Something to do with copyvios on some motorcycle article. He's been blocked for a week, but with no warning given for a junior editor on a first offence, I think that's a little steep.

Contact me via email if you want to go into details, but at the moment I'm seeing a need for a fellow biker to help him edit constructively on motorcycle subjects, of which I know nothing. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't know that happened. I will take a look. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Lots of space

Regarding this: not all web browsers are created equal, nor all displays. I frequently read Wikipedia on a monitor turned long side perpendicular to the ground, or on a 5:3 aspect ratio tablet held the same way. On my tablet right now, the images float above the table and it looks pretty poor.

Many people view Wikipedia on a handheld device such as a phone which definitely does not have a lot of space on the sides. Something to keep in mind when making image-placement decisions. – Brianhe (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look on my large screen, tablet and android phone when I'm not at work. I was under the impression that putting images as thumbs made it easier for different browsers/displays to deal with them. 11:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Thumbnails are great. But packing them in until your display looks "full" probably isn't a good idea because it will be over-full on someone else's monitor. This link should show you what I mean [1]. - Brianhe (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I use the wiki-app on anything that doesn't have a decent sized screen. I've never had issues with that. These things are always going to be a compromise. Image full for those with big displays - tablet users will suffer. Less images so that tablet users are happy, less content than optimum for PC users. 11:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Another option, lots of tables have tiny images in-table that can be clicked through to view. List of Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks for example, and many in Category:Lists of National Historic Landmarks by state. Brianhe (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look later. I should be doing some work, instead of editing wikipedia all day long. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The in-table images seem to be the best idea. I have no idea how they look on other displays, but if it's a standard thing on wikipedia, I guess they must be suitable. It's gonna take me a while to complete though. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's all a learning process. I'm sure it will be easier the second time around, if you decide you want to try again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

THANKS

Just wanted to thank you for your support. 72bikers (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You're always welcome. You're one of the good guys here.

I'm starting to feel that it isn't worth arguing with certain admins. If I am blocked again, I will just play video games for the duration of my block and get back to editing, once the block is over. I like wikipedia a lot, I just don't like the lack of consistency or accountability from a few of the admins. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I could not agree more! Except in my down time I choose to work on my own personal motorcycle. 72bikers (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey I shortened what your last message said on my talk page. I did not change what you said just removed the last part about feeling crappy. About 2 hours after doing this Brianhe who must be stalking me now undid the change I made. I left a message on his talk page to stay off mine and to stop stalking me. Should I bring this up to the admins attention? 72bikers (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't bring it up with the admins, but you can of course change the wording of that message of mine, or remove it from your talk page. If you have asked him not to touch your talk page, perhaps you should remind him of that, and make it clear that not touching your talk page includes, posting,reverting,tagging,templating,editing,etc. He wants to be an admin, so I'm pretty sure he won't want to get involved in any more nasty dramas. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kapil Sibal page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South Korea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I don't know if it as too much, but I removed this contentfor WP:Undue. Regards Alokibees (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the entire article is too much, so good edit! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lee Man-hee

Hi Spacecowboy420, Please let me know what makes you keep saying only 'cult' and removing whole other information. Could we mention it both side information? What do you want to keep it this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

mainly because I think there are enough notable sources stating that it's a cult, but there are not enough reliable sources for the other content. Wikipedia is being used to promote a weird religious cult, and the editors who are promoting that cult have a conflict of interest because they are connected to that cult. Also, they are not following the rules of wikipedia and are using multiple accounts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to surly follow the Wikipedia rules but it is not easy. So please make this article more clearly not saying only one side information.

This is google first page when you enter "HWPL" https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=hwpl&oq=hwpl&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l5.3759j0j7

Please see these links for "HWPL" news using google news searching (past year). https://www.google.com.au/search?num=50&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=633&tbs=qdr%3Ay&tbm=nws&q=%22hwpl%22&oq=%22hwpl%22&gs_l=serp.3...0.0.0.1179.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.2DVXTTARdFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey man, I've been trying to keep the Lee Man-hee and SCJ pages honest. I was the one who accidentally anonymously posted the edit that Mannam, HWPL, IPYG et al are not "cults" but fronts for a cult. I also am the one who contributed the picture of their 2012 Olympiad which you keep removing (until the last time, I thought it was the SCJ drone taking it down). Out of curiosity, why don't you want that picture up? I risked my safety to take it, and I think the mass games are a suitable representation of SCJ. Junganghansik (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reinsertion. FYI, that white-clad group standing in the middle of the stadium in the photo, that's a bunch of foreigners in Mannam shirts that were sent into the stadium with no idea what to expect. Apparently even a few of them had been recruited earlier that day. If you ever need to play tag team on either of those pages, just send me a message. I try to check in monthly. Junganghansik (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we're doing well with our work on those articles. Socks get blocked, silly content gets removed. I'm sure there will be more socks there, but if we keep on making good edits, it's never gonna be a problem. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Suzuki Gixxer

Not sure I understand your reasoning here. It's an Indian market bike, wouldn't Indian awards be especially relevant in its case? Note that this is the 150 cc, Indian market Suzuki Gixxer, not the 750–1000 cc world market Suzuki GSX-R which is also called "Gixxer" in the U.S. - Brianhe.public (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There are awards given out each year for numerous bikes such as in Cycle World. These are not rare occurrence and even on such notable motorcycles as the Suzuki Hayabusa which has received many make no mention of them. So I do not think it is of such importance to make note of them here. Gives the page a appearance of a advertisement. 72bikers (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If it were an India only bike, I would agree that awards might be relevant. However, due to it being available in other markets, the notability of those awards is far less. Also, I would agree with 72bikers, that there are so many awards given out, that they are no longer of great importance and lack notability. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is an India-only market bike, as far as I can tell, according to the sources. And the awards were significant "bike of the year" awards from major media like Autocar and Top Gear. Sorry but I'm just not seeing what the problem is with this. Shouldn't an across-the-board deletion of "bike of the year" awards start with consensus at an appropriate venue like WP Motorcycling? - Brianhe (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm really certain that it isn't India only. I will do a little searching, and confirm exactly where it is sold. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem, it's just something that adds nothing to the article. There are more bikes awards, than there are different bike models in India. They are kinda meaningless, and serve no purpose apart from marketing. Oh. Gixxer is sold in the Philippines. (and might be sold in Japan) - not sure where else though. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is also sold in the Philippines so it is not a India only motorcycle. But as I stated earlier,these are not rare occurrence and even on such notable motorcycles as the Suzuki Hayabusa which has received many awards there is no mention of them. 72bikers (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Also there should not need to be a debate on a issue that clearly is not the norm in motorcycle articles. 72bikers (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Putting awards on bike articles, does not seem to be the norm, so a long drawn on debate on it doesn't really seem to be required. If a really well known and respect bike such as the Hayabusa, does not have mention of its numerous awards on its article, then a minor bike such as the Gixxer most certainly shouldn't have mention of its far less notable awards. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well done nicely spoken. Looks like we were on the same page with this 72bikers (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

List of countries by graduates in natural sciences and engineering

Please do not blank pages, as you did to List of countries by graduates in natural sciences and engineering, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Wikipedia, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then redirect it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then look at the deletion policy. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I undid your cut n paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Honda CRF1000L (and Honda XRV750) a different title by copying the content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Africa Twin. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I will revert your edit & then make a request to merge the history of the two original articles, into the new article. That seems like the easiest way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thank you for taking the trouble to do that. — Diannaa (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope it works, it's the first time I have requested a history merge, and I wasn't sure if it could be done, because it was merging two articles, into another one. Fingers crossed. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Appleyard is the history merge maven, I'm sure it's all right. — Diannaa (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I spoke to him a couple of days ago, about something unrelated and he was able to resolve that issue really quickly. Thanks again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Remind you of anybody?

Looking at recent edits here, I'm noticing bullshit warnings being posted - and reposted when removed - by IP editors. That sort of harassment remind you of anyone? --Pete (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it's someone who has had their precious feelings hurt by my edits. It's kinda sad when things are taken so personally, over a collaborative project. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

List of fastest production motorcycles

Are you going to show that those are track only or in track form bikes? It should state somewhere that those two are not street legal. 72bikers (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, the additions to the list were good, but there needs to be additional notes to say which are street legal.Zachlita (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what I was thinking. Just so that no one is mislead with the information given. 72bikers (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Also maybe define how the ducati achieves its top speed. That it is a street legal bike but that you have to equip the track only exhaust. That is provided from the manufacture along with the street legal exhaust. And that it does not need to be derestricted or tampered with but just adding the manufactures track exhaust 72bikers (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Good points. Yes, of course the notes should make things a little clearer. I will get to it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the notes. Feel free to adjust the wording, if you can think of a better way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. 72bikers (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Tracking vs. Harrasing

I was amused by the discussion | here. If you have a history with someone that causes you to be wary of them, it's self-preservation to track their edits and speak up when you find conversations about you or incidents involving you. As long as you butt out from discussions and conflicts that don't involve you, the other editor doesn't have a leg to stand on by accusing you of "following". It's just a red herring to distract from the real issue of their behavior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the user in question has already accused me of being a sock-puppet and is commenting on the merits of accusing people of being sock-puppets, then I agree with you 100%. Looking at someone's edits is obviously acceptable and obviously done by those who are making sock-puppet accusations, so yes they are trying to distract people from their errors, by throwing mud at everyone who disagrees with their edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Looking at someone's edits is...obviously done by those who are making sock-puppet accusations" Oh, but they defending the project against you, so their motives are entirely unquestionable. Defending yourself against them is just being petty. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

99% of things on Wikipedia are very petty. I find it annoying that I came to Wikipedia to edit, and found that I had to learn all the petty rules and guidelines in order to have any chance of my content surviving here. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are, which is why I usually tell people throwing the WP:ALPHABETSOUP at me to go pound sand. 99% of the people that like to do so only pay attention to standards they like, they rest they flout with impunity. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I told you, the rules only apply to others. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed they do. Morals and fairness from certain editors, is a little to much to expect. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Loved you edit summary. My other pet peeve is the cronyism. Editors butting into conflicts that don't involve them. Notice how the same editor had jumped in the sock-puppet discussion? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It's to be expected. Of course if you or I did that, there would be an ANI report crying about how mean we are. Oh well, as long as I don't change my style to accommodate their silliness, all is good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to attract the middle-school crowd. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yamaha TRX850

Hi, Please could you justify why you deleted the line, "Essentially a solo café racer, the TRX has meagre provision for a pillion passenger, with a thin pillion seat, a token seat strap, and uncomfortably high foot pegs"? Cheers. Arrivisto (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and yes of course I am happy to explain why I deleted that content: It seemed very much like a personal opinion, not a fact and therefore unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia. Take a moment to read similar content that I added to the KTM 390 series article.

Motor Cycle News reviewed the bike and complimented the build quality, saying "It may be built in India, but the Duke seems to be well finished. Every bike is quality checked in Austria before being shipped to dealers."

It makes it clear that it is the opinion of a third party reviewer, puts the relevant text as a quote, and shows the source.

If the content you wish to be included is from a review, I would suggest either quoting or paraphrasing the review, and providing a citation. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your reply, but I disagree with your assessment. To call a bike a café racer is a factual description, not an opinion. It may not be a 1960's bike, nor a faux-retro (like the new Thruxton), nor does it have spoked wheels, but it is a café racer nonetheless. The pillion provision is awful (fact) for the reasons given, and Yamaha effectively acknowledge this by producing an optional plastic tonneau cover to replace the "seat". A delicious TRX project I saw at the Stafford Classic Bike Show yesterday was original apart from dispensing with the useless pillion seat and glassing it over. Of course, I have been the main contributing editor to the TRX page for some time, but I acknowledge that I don't own it; and, being anxious to avoid an edit war, I shan't interfere for the time being; but I note that another editor, 49.196.128.105, reverted your edit (which you promptly re-reverted), so it's currently 2:1 in favour of café racer! Arrivisto (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've never ridden the bike in question, but I certainly don't doubt your statements.

The problem is that if you want to say that something is awful, we can't do it on wikipedia, all we can do is say "this media source stated that it was awful"

I will take a look for some sources online, hopefully I will find some sources supporting as much of the above content as possible.

I'm at work now, so I will have to take my time, but hopefully I will get around to it, within the next few hours. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reviews are proving hard to locate. The MCN one is already on the article, and it says a little about the uncomfortable pillion. More is hard to find...

I have plenty of refs. When I dig them out, I'll reinstate the sentence, supported with citations. Best! Arrivisto (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Motorcycling Wikiproject

Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm looking forward to finding fun things to edit. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, Spacecowboy420. Please see these edits. I have an experience of déjà vu.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Let them edit a little more, the more silly edits they make, the easier it will be to get them blocked. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I submitted a Sockpuppet investigation regarding Massyparcer. I would appreciate if you could comment to the investigation.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just thinking about him...Of course I will comment. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Transphobia

Please stop making edits implying that the term misgendered is a neologism, as you did here and here. As I already explained in the edit summary reverting your first change, misgendered is over 30 years old, which is an eternity in this fast moving field. In particular, the term is older than other terms such as genderqueer and transwoman, and unless you want to call every term in the transgender glossary a "neologism", misgendered certainly does not qualify as one. Mathglot (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You're basing your comments on the assumption that the criteria for a term being a neologism, is purely based on when the term was first used, not basing it on when the word was recognized by mainstream sources. You should also note that the standard procedure for dealing with neologisms, is to just remove them from the article. I was trying to be nice by offering a compromise and explaining that it is a neologism. I can deal with it the other way, if you prefer. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm basing it on solid evidence that the term misgendered was attested in at least forty books by 1986, according to the n-gram chart I linked for you right in the edit summary, and once again above. The evidence also compares usage of misgendered with two control terms that are widely used in articles about transgender issues all over Wikipedia and are not marked as neologisms, though they both happen to be more recent than misgendered. You then reverted, stating in the edit summary that "it doesn't really seem that way to me" as your evidence for misgendered as a neologism.

"You should also note that the standard procedure for dealing with neologisms, is to just remove them from the article."

Noted, and agreed. So, stick to your guns: for consistency's sake, why not go ahead and remove every term from the Transphobia article that was attested by mainstream sources more recently than "misgendered" and let's see what other editors have to say about that. You can start with cissexism, cisgenderism, cisnormativity, transphobic, transphobia, trans bashing, and deadnaming, all of which are not attested at the 40-books threshold until later than "misgendered" (don't believe me, look it up).

"I was trying to be nice by offering a compromise and explaining that it is a neologism."

You don't have to be nice, though I do appreciate it; however you gave no explanation, just your opinion. Your "compromise" was to undo my edit. If an edit is challenged for factual accuracy, you need to support it with evidence, not mere opinion. Attempting to revert a change you don't like by stating "it doesn't seem that way to me" in the edit summary is an example of the Because I say so argument, and it won't wash, especially when it flies in the face of solid evidence to the contrary. Your edit was factually incorrect for the reasons given there and here, so I reverted it.

By all means, "deal with it the other way," if that's your preference. The concrete evidence is strongly against you. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Based on bullet point 2 in the box at the top, perhaps this thread would be more appropriate if it were moved to Talk:Transphobia. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Either way, I think that for the sake of peace and stability on that article, I will not restore the content referring to misgender being a neologism, unless I can find a reliable source that supports that claim. At the end of the day, I think that most content disputes can be solved by using reliable sources, and even when those sources do not support the content I consider to be ideal, it's best in the long run for most articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sexism edit sum

Probably more likely an overly enthusiastic student edit than a COI editor. Student editing projects are a plague persistent problem on gender related articles. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, probably not a genuine COI. I've just seen so many references to that particular book on gender related articles. I'm guessing it's the same two or three editors putting it on there. However, that is of course the dangerous thing about guessing, I could be 100% wrong. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm RexxS. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Rodeo that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I'm not your fucking bro, sonny. RexxS (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I'm eternally grateful for such a charming and eloquent response. I am honored to read such well written, and classy messages on my talk page.

Magsaysay Bridge and Cabadbaran

Do not delete those photos right now!!!! Ronald Galope Barniso (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

About the user

You're not Butuanon, and you are not allowed to delete those photos because those photos are important to the people of Agusan del Norte for the future!!! I warned you!!! Ronald Galope Barniso (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

bakit? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Robinsons Place.jpg

Can you give me a pointer toward where it appears File:Robinsons Place.jpg was scraped from? I didn't find it in a Tineye search. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

sorry..I saw this message, just after I put one on your talk page...give me a moment, I'm at work, so I will give you a pointer as soon as I get a moment... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

As for how to post, escape the text? ("www dot daily hyphen planet dot com slash Bios slash Clark_Kent") If all else fails, email it to me, but I'd rather have it in an open log here in case it's needed for reference later. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

replied on your page. I found a way to put the address in the message. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

On Victory

Hi there! Thank you for your thoughtful edits to the listing of Victory. Having reviewed your edits, I think they make the page more concise and to-the-point, which is clearly a good thing. So, thank you!

I have a question, though, regarding the removal of the purpose statement ("Victory exists to honor God and establish Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered, socially-responsible, churches and campus ministries in every nation"). The statement appears word-for-word in a properly cited column by Christianity Today columnist Ed Stetzer. I'd like to understand the thought behind the removal of this particular chunk of text, because I think listing an organization's purpose statement (or mission) would be great information to have in a page about that organization. But maybe that's just me.

I also found myself thinking, maybe the citation isn't good enough. But Steven_Furtick's blog was accepted as a source for citing the purpose of the Elevation Network in its listing on the Elevation_Church page (which was one of my pegs when I began to contribute to the Victory listing). So color me a little confused. I hope you don't mind my asking. Obviously, I'm hoping we can Undo this part and keep it in, or perhaps transfer it to a more appropriate part of the page; if not, at least I would have understood the thought process behind its removal.

Again, I appreciate your edits, and look forward to collaborating further with you and the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganns (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My reasoning behind the removal was...

1. The quote on the source was a word for word copy from the everynation website, and as such it seemed to be pretty close to being a primary source.

2 Secondly, as you stated, it is from a blog. I personally, don't really have much faith in using blogs as sources in most situations. ::: I would probably have objected, if I had been editing the other article that relied on it as a source.

At the end of the day, I usually rely on news sources for content like this, if it is notable, it's probably in a reliable source somewhere. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Have a pleasant day. (Apologies too for the absence of the signatures; this is literally the first time I'm posting on anyone's Talk pages, and I haven't gotten the hang of things. Cheers!) Ganns (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. I tend to be a little too happy to remove content from articles on specific churches, because a lot of the time people add overly promotional content from their own particular church. It may be the case in this particular situation that the content could have remained. As long as it is worded nicely, and not promotional, I don't have too many opinions on that content being restored to the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think your reasons are very valid. Victory will just have to take it as a challenge to make the kind of impact on mainstream media that would allow third-party content from reliable sources to reflect the church's purpose statement to come across in a way that is organic and natural. Thanks again for your time! Ganns (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request granted

72 hours without talk page access, per your request here. In case this was a mistake, WP:UTRS is still an option. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

RE:

Agree to delete the article List of South Korean regions by GDP, but it's not my original work, i just moved it. Lakshmix Created it on Dec. 20, 2008‎. Cncs 17：41 May 25, 2016.

Moved from user page

Why did you remove the articles? Is therea problem with my doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Galope Barniso (talk • contribs)

please,please,please,please,please learn about the Wikipedia rules. You're adding lots of things without following the rules. All the photos, stuff copied from other places, we can't do that stuff. Every editor has been trying to help you, but you just keep doing it! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my doing moments ago. But don't say bad words against me because it hurts to my feelings. Nextime I will never add souces about URIOS UNIVERSITY articles. Salamat

~ ~ ~ ~