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 (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] (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)

Paw Patrol Voice Cast[edit]

The voice cast section may not be linked to something but at least it goes by what's said in the show's end credits. (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • For which zero evidence has been presented. Come on, if it's this easy to find a reliable (not IMDB) source, then please just cite it. Otherwise, it stays out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Minnie Mouse[edit]

it is too, because when i looked in there, it said she started voicing her in 1987, she first voiced her in "Disney's DTV" in 1987. FrozenFan2 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • IMDB is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, regardless of if it is "right" or not in this instance. If you can cite an official Disney source for her taking up the role in 1987, then by all means reinstate the change. If you can't, then please refrain from doing so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll do the best i can to find one, and I'm sorry if I got all mad, I apologize. FrozenFan2 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Please do, it will bring an end to the edit war. No problem, and thanks for reacting in the correct manner - I understand it can be frustrating as a new editor when you have your edits reverted due to a simple lack of knowledge of how things are done :) I hope you enjoy your time here! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

On 'Flag Icons' in Tables[edit]

Luke, I have no interest in reverting your removal of the flag icons from the tables at Jetix, as I think it is really debatable as to whether they added anything to an article like that. However, the use of flag icons is allowed in tables – the relevant portion of MOS:FLAG (specifically in WP:WORDPRECEDENCE) states: In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Now, you can debate whether the use of flag icons at Jetix falls under that or not. But, in general, the use of flag icons in situations such as in tables in articles is allowed. Just thought you should know... --IJBall (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I don't see how that particular passage of text is satisfied personally, but I also see how someone could claim it to be. For me, the biggest reason to remove is that some things obviously can't have flags. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


If you an admin, can you do something about this user please, he keeps on undoing my edits, all I'm just doing is keeping the article all sourced out and keeping them the way they are. he won't leave my edits alone, I've been trying to tell him they are already sourced out in the article, can you please get him to stop so I can edit in peace please FrozenFan2 (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And I didn't even do anything wrong either. FrozenFan2 (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm going to ping @MarnetteD: so that they're fully aware of this discussion (it's only fair, I'm sure you'll agree). I personally agree that they're going a little too far in some cases with the reverting (Steve Kynman being one example in my opinion - a wholesale revert was a bit unfair there), however there are some obvious issues with your edits. For example, introduced a duplicated word (look a little later on in the sentence). Also, I think this edit summary is a pretty good explanation of what's going on; apparently, we're not supposed to use the fields mentioned there, and I believe this is the issue Marnette has with most of your edits. You should also read WP:OVERLINK, as mentioned in another edit summary; we do not generally link to nationalities any more. Whilst it is true that there are some articles that have links to nationalities, and some that have the fields you added, these are old articles that have not been cleaned up yet. Does this help? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it does, I don't want an edit war to start happening. I just want him to leave me alone, I even told him three times that it's source out in the article, on the Wayne Allwine page, and I'm just trying to update articles and make them a lot better. FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for the ping L. I have been trying to leave links to the relevant policies and guidelines in both my edit summaries and on this editors talk page. I do not know whether they are being read or not. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The second post here shows that the information about how to use the fields in the person infobox is being ignored. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand both of your positions. Marnette, it would probably have been best to have hand-written a message on FrozenFan's talkpage, rather than using a template with appended comments; a quick look at this user's (brief) history shows that they do know how to use talkpages and how to discuss. It is something I should do more often myself. FrozenFan, I appreciate that you are genuinely trying to improve the articles, and I doubt Marnette thinks that you're trying to make them worse; but Marnette is an experienced editor, so when they revert you with well-explained reasons, you really should read them carefully instead of just re-reverting. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I do get it, and I already said that to him that I do get it. But he's still not listening to me..... FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And I am providing sources for articles too, i can't understand why he won't listen to me.... FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, removing things from their talk page was a little silly - please don't do that again. It seems like both of you are partially paying attention to what the other writes. FrozenFan, could you please not add in the children into the infobox? Also, whilst Marnette is being formal, they are not being abusive - they're just getting a little frustrated as they feel you're not reading their message. Could you please list the sources you used here? IMDB is not reliable, as it is user-generated, and I know that was one issue that Marnette had. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind then...... FrozenFan2 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I want to help, but I need to see whether the issue is with the sources you've used being unreliable, or if Marnette simply missed them. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


I think it's best I shouldn't edit anymore, because I've been doing the best I can to put a source for the Wayne Allwine article like what user:MarnetteD told me to do. But it still wasn't good enough, he even told me not to reply to his talk page again, I've been doing the best I can here but it's just not good enough. FrozenFan2 (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think that's the case. I think Marnette just got too frustrated with what they perceived as you not listening. I would say that it may be best to find another topic to work on for a while. For what it's worth, that LA Times source was fine; it definitely satisfies the reliable source guidelines. Try to stick to simple things for a while, like cleaning up grammar and spelling errors, and reverting obvious vandalism or factual errors from articles. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's also worth noting that you did keep putting in that information into the infobox, even after we'd both said that it wasn't what we're supposed to do here any more, which is probably why Marnette got frustrated. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, that's the source I provided in the article, It even shows the names of his kids and stuff. FrozenFan2 (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I think I can explain, somewhat, the issue here. Marnette's reference to the children being non-notable is that they don't have articles of their own, and, as of right now, they wouldn't justify articles of their own. When we use that field in infoboxes, it is used solely for the notable relatives of that person (in that field's case, the notable children.) So, even though you can reliably source the information on them, Wikipedia's editors have decided to form the guideline that we don't include children when they don't have articles of their own. This goes for other family members, by the way, although it is not uncommon to see spouses listed even when they don't have their own article. Now, as to the notable_roles and awards fields in the infobox, as Marnette explained, they have been deprecated - in case you aren't aware of what this means, it means that we no longer add those fields into articles; they remain there for the older articles that had the information added years ago. At some point, it will probably be removed completely from the infobox. It's also worth noting that you did not directly source any of the other fields, although in this case, that wouldn't have made any difference. Does this help, and do you understand where you went wrong now? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......, now I understand now. That's why he keeps removing them. Because they don't have there own articles and all that other stuff you said too. I actually do get it now. FrozenFan2 (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • That's good to hear! :) I thought it might be the case that you hadn't realize what Marnette meant when they said non-notable - the problem is that we experience Wikipedia editors tend to forget that it may not mean much to a newbie. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, also, can you let him know I understand now for what he did and I'm sorry too, because I'm just a little nervous for reply to his talk page again. I don't want him to still be mad at me. FrozenFan2 (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have only just gotten on-WikiP today. I am glad that things are becoming clear for FF2 and I thank you Luke for all of the time and effort that you have taken in this situation. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Sadly Lukeno94 FF2 began restoring the notable roles fields tonight in spite of you explaining things so well in your earlier post. I do hope that the editor will heed you words in any future editing. MarnetteD|Talk 03:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, that's quite disappointing. Unfortunately, I'm not going to have the time, energy, motivation or level-headedness for the next couple of weeks to try and explain things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were suppose to be there, my mistake, don't worry everyone makes mistakes. I just made a mistake. I completely, completely, completely, completely, understand. I'm trying so hard not to get blocked from the wiki, I came here on the wiki because I want to update articles and make them a lot better for everyone, doesn't anyone understand that? FrozenFan2 (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I didn't know his awards are not suppose to be back in there either, I didn't know that, and I apologize, I thought just his kids are not suppose to be in there is what i thought. FrozenFan2 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Userspace link[edit]

I'd say this ought to solve that problem: [3]--Jac16888 Talk 18:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, although knowing this IP, they'll probably ignore that and continue to link to it. I literally don't know what I can do about them; they hop IPs like nobody's business, as well as ISPs and even countries! Trying to get them to follow policy is like pulling teeth, and complaining about references in addition to a laundry list of other issues will see the entire edit reinstated with a source, regardless of how many other issues there were, and how many changes they've made are still unreferenced... or even in contradiction to a reference. And no one will block them because they're not solely a vandal, they just cause a huge mess due to their incompetence. And then I lose track of the IP for a couple of days as it hops to articles I haven't clocked yet... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome messages by... you[edit]

Hi, Luke! I thought I should let you know about's prank. He is leaving inappropriate messages on user talk pages (mine included) – and he is doing it with your signature. I came close to asking you for an explanation :D Surtsicna (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Well that's a new one... not seen anyone do that before with my signature on it. I wonder who that IP is... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The photograph of the man urinating is quite original too. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that is very weird. The sad thing is that the IP actually put a little bit of time and effort into that troll! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Toy Story 3[edit]

I'm the one that made that edit by mistake, please don't take it seriously. I was editing something and I restored that edit but accident. FrozenFan2 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one that Removed "The Monkey" in the first place, I restored it by mistake. I even already started a discussion on the talk page about that character too. FrozenFan2 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


Right now, I need a break from MarnetteD. I think it's best I shouldn't reply and leave talk messages to him anymore. Because, he's not getting along with me that well, I did admit that I did make some mistakes when I'm on here, like this edit here. I admit that I did made that edit there, I don't like lying at all, I alway's want to tell the truth all the time. I now do admit I made that edit there, because the reason was, I thought the message I saw on there was abusive and mean at first. That's why I removed it, but now I learned now not to removed article talk page messages, I learned that now. I'm not trying to ignore rules either, that's what MarnetteD thought?, but right now, I just need a break, I just don't undestand why were not getting along with each other, I've been trying to be nice and kind to him and all other stuff, but I just doesn't work out that well. I really hope you understand Lukeno94. I knew I made mistakes in the past, but I just need a break for right now and from MarnetteD, I've even been doing my best to follow the rules too on the wiki, I don't understand why he won't get along with me... =( FrozenFan2 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • It may be for the best to take a bit of a break. I think you need to just take a little more time and a little more care with your edits, because some of them have been a little sloppy at times. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ya, I do admit that my edits are a little sloppy, that's why I discuss them on article talk pages for information, MarnetteD keeps saying that my edit are disruptive and stuff, MarnetteD just won't get along with me too, he told not to reply to him ever again. I've been trying really really hard of being nice to him and other stuff, I never said any mean threats to him, I guess me and him will never get along, he still won't listen to me. I've even been telling him "I'm sorry" over 10 or more times already in a nice way. He's putting me down really badly.... FrozenFan2 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I trust you Luken094, because I hope you can understand what I'm going through. FrozenFan2 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Then please leave them alone and stop posting on their talk page as they asked. Thank you and have a nice day. --Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


Your right, Lukeno94. It's best I should take a break from the wiki for a while, because of all this stress that's been happening to me. I don't know how long I'm going to be gone. But it's best to be safe and sorry for me. I'm telling you this because I know I can trust you, and you do understand me. FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey bro[edit]

I just logged back in after a short vacation from the Internet...what's happening? I've noticed you active mediating disputes here and there, but is there anything particularly of note? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Not really. Some disputes I've mediated fairly successfully, other times I've gotten annoyed with people and tried to rip their internet heads off. Nothing much ever changes here :p Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (Fallout narrator voice): Wikipedia...never changes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want an example of just how little changes... we've got more socks on a certain Indian university page and related pages... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That actually does have me interested...would it be alright of me to ask where this is going down? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The same place we ran into Msoamu, Aligarh Muslim University - more socks posting in probable copyvio content taken straight from the university's site, and creating articles on barely-notable/non-notable student societies and such with massive attempts at ref bombing to try and make things look notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Players released[edit]

Their release was officially announced by the club's website, they'll not return to the club and they will sign for outher clubs in the meantime. You're removing 100% correct references from the storyline, aside from being the only one reverting correct additions. If an official website announces it, how can you contest it?

There's no absolute consensus over the subject, if you enter at WT:FOOTY and search "release" you'll see this. Cheers, MYS77 15:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Wrong, standard practise has been to do things the way I changed to for a LONG time. Whether there is explicit consensus from a debate is, in fact, irrelevant, because the consensus is whatever is most commonly followed in editing anyway. How can I contest it? Because of the numerous times players have been "released", only to suddenly sign a new deal before they even leave the club, or almost straight after they left (as was the case with Stuart Taylor (footballer, born 1980) at Manchester City, for example). It's also not factually inaccurate to say they're still contracted to a club when, well, they're still contracted at a club - but it is factually inaccurate to say that they have no club whilst their contract is still running down. Changing things to say they will be released - which is precisely what I did - is making the timeline more accurate and factually correct, not the opposite. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Even if this consensus was reached, removing correct references from the page (as you did with all my edits), is wrong. MYS77 15:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Please show me exactly where I removed a reference. You can't, and the reason why is simple; I didn't. Yes, I re-wrote the passage of text which explained that the players were being released, but I left the references in place without touching them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't note that one. Cheers, MYS77 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Indexing RFC[edit]

Please do not remove {{noindex}} from the misplaced RFCs. RFCs are not to be indexed, see (also Some RFC are not under /wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/ evading the indexing prohibition. Otherwise I will have to file a new bug in Wikimedia's Bugzilla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Why did you reverted? --Kiwi (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


I havent done anything wrong so get your facts right before accusing editors TeaLover1996 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Wrong. You made the factually inaccurate change that Scott Sinclair was no longer a Manchester City player. Until the 9th of June, he remains a Manchester City player due to the way the transfer window works. And you can't claim you didn't know that because you removed the comments in the article that specifically told you! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Tough I havent done anything wrong so there TeaLover1996 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It requires a special form of incompetence to say that, given how obviously wrong you are... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sega on WT:VG[edit]

That edit summary was inappropriate. Cool it. If you're getting that angry about someone (either mistakenly or deliberately) changing your comments, maybe you should consider disengaging from that topic/user and let other editors handle it. --Izno (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How is it too excessive?[edit]

I was just updating the Wii section of this page since it sounded too quiet. Other consoles on the page like the NES, SNES, N64, and GameCube have games listed in their section. I was trying to contribute to the page.

Never mind. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Aligarh Muslim University Alumni[edit]

I would have thought that pretty straightforward and non-controversial. If you are using Windows you could redo all the people to the small a and then redirect the category. I'd do it but I'm using my laptop at work and it only has Linux. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Normally, I'd agree with you... but given the behaviour of the users in question (who appear to be meats, not socks), I want to make sure that I have some kind of consensus to back me up. If the move request clearly lands in my favour, then there is clear evidence to whoever is behind the accounts that the move isn't appropriate, and they either change their ways (highly unlikely) or cause more disruption and then can be dealt with (although, quite frankly, COI blocks with the helping hand of meatpuppetry would probably apply) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion[edit]

You have nominated Aligarh Muslim University Students' Union, Filmsaaz, Law Society, Aligarh Muslim University, University Film Club, Aligarh Muslim University for deletion without going to the merit of the pages.

Aligarh Muslim University Students Union is a statutory body under an Act passed by Indian Parliament. It is more than hundred years old. First life member was Mahatma Gandhi. You have cited reason that its a PR stunt is unfounded for!!!

Filmsaaz is in ninth year now and has attracted international personalities so far. It has been already mentioned at IMDB website which you undermined.

Law Society is the oldest society at the university. The society is more than hundred years now. One of the Indian Governor was the secretary of the society way back in 1953 which gives it a legitimacy, but you ignored this fact and saying again this is an PR stunt.

University Film Club, has completed more than 35 years and has a good standing.

Only person who have closely associated with all this could know the minute details and its importance. Persons seating miles away cant understand a single bit.Arifjwadder (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Those are all doubtless excellent qualities; but they will not justify an article unless backed by reliable, secondary, independent sources. BTW, you might also wish to consider assuming the inherent good faith of other editors, and perhaps also mull over whether the desire for competence is only one way... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A very valid reply, and it's interesting to see just how much the two users involved quack more and more with every edit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't remember[edit]

Hey Luke, I can't remember, did we have a conversation about Marcus&Gloves and CoccinelRhino? I'm seeing another problem user in the Backyardigans episode article, namely King Cpo Ltd. I'm guessing these are all connected. I'm having trouble picking which sockjobber to suspect. Maelbros? Thx Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Could very well be Maelbros. Don't think we had a conversation about those two users, but that subject area, the type of editing and the fact that the edits are marked as minor are all textbook Maelbros. King Cpo Ltd. could be kicked to the kerb just for the username violation (implying promotional and/or shared use), even without the obvious vandalism being present as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


If anyone is concerned about me seemingly going over 3RR on any article at the moment; two IP ranges (clearly being operated by the same person) are being used to blanket-revert my edits. Currently, that's IPs from, and - not one of these reversions is in good faith. By extension; if the ranges haven't been blocked and you see them coming through and blanket reverting me whilst I'm offline, please help everyone out and just roll them back. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • OK, let's extend that note to say that any mass reverts coming from IPs that ping back to nLayer Communications or AS Areti Internet Ltd are clearly linked to this troll, given that a new IP has appeared that isn't in those ranges. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Barek: to let you know the specifics of what is going on, as far as I know them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What happened here?[edit]

Here? Rather than just slapping a 4im on their page, how about explaining why you reverted their edits? They definitely don't seem to constitute vandalism to me, just confusion from the IP. Frood 17:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, their edits do constitute vandalism, as they are rapidly changing categories to ones that are at best non-specific, and at worst blatantly inappropriate. They'd already had two warnings, and have made a huge number of these bad changes. And the category-related things are not the only issue, as pretty much every single edit has been unconstructive at best. You're going to tell me that the edits reverted here, for example, are good, when they obviously conflict with the rest of the article, they were done without sources, and they have no explanation behind them? The 4im warning was more than justified. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)