User talk:Lukeno94

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

Talkpages[edit]

Hi, Editors are allowed to remove warnings and block notices on their own talkpage if the want. It is their page. However they should not remove unblock requests and some other tags. More info at WP:OWNTALK and WP:UP#CMT. QED237 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • However, they're not allowed to continue/start vandalizing their own talk pages whilst blocked, which is precisely what they've done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course[edit]

Hi Lukeno94. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, which was closed as "no consensus". The AfD was taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner where opinions are split between "endorse" and "overturn". I have started an RfC at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the cookies! Tess 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem, User:Tess600. :) By the way, your signature doesn't link to your userpage or talk page, could you please fix it? This can be done by (assuming you're on the desktop version of Wikipedia) going into Preferences, and making sure that the signature says something like [[User:Tess600|Tess]], or [[User talk:Tess600|Tess]]. Thanks in advance :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's the fix: Let's see if this works...Tess, MLIS 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Tess, MLIS
  • Okay, maybe this? User:Tess600 (Thanks for your help.)

The second one works, yes, but there's no datestamp in it :) This is one of the few solid practices that Wikipedia actually has; any posts on talk pages must be signed and dated. Thanks for fixing things! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

CfD[edit]

About the Category i created "Songs about cheating", anyway i can help by renaming it, remerging it, uncategorize some of the pages or add better detail of the category???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyrtleKeiferMiller15 (talkcontribs) 21:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think renaming or remerging it will do anything. Some of those pages probably need to be removed from the category, and the category probably needs to be defined better; but even if it is, I don't think it really is a suitable category. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Erm... link spamming?[edit]

Hi.

I am not sure what you mean in Windows Vista article? How is it link spamming? I think I reverted link spamming, if anything.

Am I missing something?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Ah, fuck. Yep, my bad, not sure how I missed that! Please accept my full apologies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem. Face-smile.svg} Although, if I were you, I'd never use the F word in the same post where I write "Please accept my full apologies". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Junaid Jamshed[edit]

Dear Lukeno94, I hope life is good. Please can you take a look at the edits on the Junaid Jamshed page, and then at its talk page. One strident editor seems hell-bent on branding him a blasphemer even though no judicial finding has stated that. I just want a neutral page. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lukeno94, I hope you are doing good too. Sir, this editor called GorgeCusterSabre is hellbent upon making edits in order to be favorably inclined towards the living person, ignoring the Neutral point of view (NPOV). Although, the living person has himself admitted on his official Facebook account of committing a blasphemy and then seeking apologies respecting the same blasphemy, and that the Government has registered the case against him, GorgeCusterSabre will still make edits to prove the facts otherwise. Nowhere has this been written that the living person has been "convicted" of blasphemy, ensuring neutrality. Your judicious attention is invited to address this matter. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • TheKnightoftheHeart, please go and discuss this on the article's talk page; there, you can see my viewpoint as an experienced but completely external editor. I do see that you have tried to do what you believe is right, but unfortunately, that isn't necessarily the standard way Wikipedia does things. Also, you need to be careful of the three-revert rule, because you may well violate it if you revert again, and that would risk you being blocked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

re: 99...[edit]

Thanks for helping. See this and this list for further insight. Vsmith (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem. Whoever is behind that IP should be ashamed of themselves, because that kind of harassment is just sad. They clearly are capable of doing constructive edits, so it's a shame they don't just focus on that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dirk Kuyt[edit]

About your question at WP:AN3. As an admin I prefer not to edit the articles in dispute, unless it's a question of vandalism or BLP. If you think your version has consensus, you can restore it yourself. If the question is still open, ask on the talk page and wait to see if anyone objects. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk)

As an uninvolved 3rd opinion, I would recommend against it.
  • You're not even proposing the restoration of content, you're concerned about the style.
WP:3RR does contain some exceptions for when it's okay to revert beyond the norm. These are mostly concerned with libel, or vandalism. This is neither.
  • 1RR is the principle, 3RR is a bright line.
You're doubtless familiar with the policy, bold, revert, discuss. If the editor in question boldly made a change, then you rightly reverted it, he was wrong to revert your revert. But, barring the exceptions listed above, there was no reason to edit war over it.
There's my $0.02. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm proposing the restoration of the original style, which was both the previously stable version, AND followed the standard practice of WikiProject Football. At least, for the most part; there are some separate issues with that table that are present in both revisions and need sorting out (that's not just an opinion, since the original version has an inconsistency in the style, and both need some clarifications on what "Other" means). I'm well aware of what 3RR states, and BRD, and all of those things; why do you think I asked for the previous stable version to be restored, and why did you need to remind me? It had been that way since June 2012, so two-and-a-half years. Not arguing about the LAME comment you made... but the IP's insistence that it must be better and that I must like it really is even lamer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on all factual counts. The original style is better / follows MoS / follows WikiProject standards. Sorry I came across as a bit of WP:BITE, thanks for your patience in your followup. The only point I aim to make is that it probably could have stopped with 1 revert; it'll get fixed before the deadline, and you'd be in a much better position to, having established consensus, do it yourself.
I even go so far as to take back my original recommendation and sign on as saying that, simply because you care, and have established consensus, you ought to go ahead and do it.
I'm trying to figure out what to say would have been the better option than reverting thrice, but I realized that's a great question to put to you. What is a better option than reverting another editor 3 times, even when he is clearly wrong, as was in this case? Jsharpminor (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure how you could come across as BITEing per-se, since I'm far from a new editor. It could, and should've stopped with one revert, that is correct; sadly, the IP had no interest in stopping and discussing, and I generally tend to favour upholding consensus over other things. The better option would've been discussing on the talk page, but one look at the IP's edit summaries immediately tells me that they had no interest in discussing. As you can see, I've since gone and sorted out the table properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you came back after dealing with many idiots[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This is for your relative calmness in the face of constant personal attacks and POV pushing. So many good editors get fed up; it's nice to see that you're here to stay. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure how calm I've been generally, but I do think I somehow managed to keep my cool in this latest case at least. Thanks :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Seem to be finding a whole bunch of them today though (not related to the person whose message I just removed, just to make that clear). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Adminship?[edit]

Hi Lukeno94. Would you be interested in running for adminship? I saw this from 6 months ago but I disagree - I think you would make a very good candidate. I'm particularly impressed by your car articles, and in your reviewing your edits I see sound judgement and a thorough grasp of policy. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Whilst I am pleased that you would think this, I still think that it is too soon for me to be an admin. I've only been back on Wikipedia as a regular editor for a couple of months; that would be a mark against any potential RfA right now. It's something that I might be interested in six months or so down the line, depending on exactly how things go. Things have indeed changed since February; my personal life is going much better, and I am indeed rather more level-headed right now than I was back then - but again, I'd like to wait six months for me to see if this improvement will be a long-term thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that your brief absence from Wikipedia would be a large obstacle to adminship - I wouldn't have suggested it if I did. But if you would rather wait six months, then I will of course respect that. Let me know if you feel like running in the meantime, and I'll write you up a good nomination. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How you doing?[edit]

Hey Luke, I weirdly had your talk page on my watch list and noticed the amount of edits being deleted. Hope you aren't having too much trouble!! Nice to see you back too. If you need any help please do let me know. aycliffetalk 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I made the "mistake" of commenting on someone's talkpage about everyone's favourite troll who goes around calling everyone here anti-Semites (which probably means you'll be targeted next). Most of it happened whilst I was asleep, and even when I'm not, I just find it amusing really. My talkpage is on a fair few admin's watchlists (even more so now), so it gets shut down pretty quickly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I forgot to mention, if you ever do get nominated for adminship, please do let me know as I can put a good word in for you. Ta for now :) aycliffetalk 14:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)