User talk:Lukeno94

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Lukeno52)
Jump to: navigation, search

Mark Schwarzer[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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)

AN/I notification[edit]

Hi--just telling you that I mentioned you at AN/I here about Bryce Carmony. Origamite 04:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The sig faker appears to be User:IJBALL here and here. Note that they specifically changed it to look like yours. Origamite 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid[edit]

Hello Luke, 31 podiums is possible, count them in the results table... 16 wins, 13 2nds 2 3rds. Total 31.... (2 cars involved). Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, well how does it work? There's no instruction at Template:Infobox racing car and in the example given on that page the field has not been completed. Just asking cos in other motor sport "reporting" projects I'm involved in, podiums would be shown as 31. Perhaps there has been some earlier discussion on the matter I'm not aware of? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
OK that's fine, but where does it say so? And that wasn't clear from your edit summary. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Um no... to say it is "logical" could be considered a little supercilious... as it really isn't. But if it's the accepted way of Wiki/other editors then it's fine. Maybe we could raise it at the F1 talk page? Eagleash (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Username[edit]

Hi, Its my name Shitesh Sachan and I used the same for my username shiteshsachan. What is wrong in it. Please understand it. Shiteshsachan (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nicklas Bendtner[edit]

You just made your third revert, please review The three-revert rule which you have violated. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Eidur Gudjohnsen[edit]

Hello, Why have you undone my edit for international goals saying the wikiproject says no to these. Most international players have their international goals on here. Please explain. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Every discussion I've seen on these tables has said no to including them, although it probably wouldn't hurt to start another one. They are sometimes OK if the player has only scored a couple of goals, but not those who have scored a lot of goals. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

72.196.235.154[edit]

Thanks for reverting that edit of Women in India. I really forgot to revert it. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd guessed that was the case. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time reverting to keep the vandalism notices on that IP's page in the future; the block log will take care of it for you, for the most part. Save yourself the hassle and annoyance. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Problem is that this case has been apparently mishandled. Do we take the words of sock puppets if they claim that "we are brothers" after getting blocked before for socking? I guess we don't, and if we did, that means we tell them to try other ways for socking and that happened here. Now he is able to fool CU results. We also know that such problems are not recent and for years even other incompetent editors[3] have been able to fool CU results. Have a good reading at User:OccultZone/sandbox. Note that none of these accounts are currently blocked except that IP(72.) that we talked about. While the potential long term abuse remains on going since 2010. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • At this point, I don't think the socking issue even matters. This IP, on its own, is clearly disruptive enough to warrant blocking solely on that - and, no, WP:BROTHER suggests that family-blaming is generally not believed. CU is only good up to a point, and it really isn't that hard to game (I'm pretty sure I could do it very easily indeed if I really wanted to - but I don't intend to, and have no need of doing so!), so it is only good for catching out the lazier/less clued-in vandals. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
You said the right thing, it is now mostly for catching the clueless vandals. Have a nice day, and thanks again. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)