User talk:LukeTheSpook

Welcome to my talk page. -- The Spooky One. Click here to leave me a new message Please try to keep discussions on topic. As much as I Enjoy randomness, this is not the place for it. If you want to be random, check out Uncyclopedia. Please sign your comments with four tildes (like this: ~~~~) If you're replying to an existing message, please indent your message using colons. (If your message is over several paragraphs, please indent and sign them all. That way other users [including me] can respond to your individual points) My Alternative account is LTS-sLither so don't get your panties in a bunch if you see someone who is a lot like me but isn't (unless that somone isn't my IP address or LTS-sLither) - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 01:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC) By the way, you can email me if you want.

Richboyliang

i'm deleting the stuff on vundo because some idiot always deletes my section on removing virtumonde and i dont know who, and no one bothered him about that so i wonder why all my GOOD edits are being removed like the section i added several months ago! Richboyliang (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WhyNot?Doctrine

I assume you have not saw WP:WTHN? Seems pretty much the same to me. Hoping you are well! :) — neuro^(talk) 04:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

I thought it summed up my wiki-philosophy quite well :) Jomunro (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sum 41 A-class review

Hey there, I saw your request for an A-class review on the article's peer review page, but I'm not sure if I'm supposed to initiate it. According to the WP guidelines, it looks like the nominator (one of the article's main editors, like you or Timmeh) is supposed to put it up for review from the talk page. But I'd be glad to review it once it's up. Cheers, Ink Runner (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I'm still confused. It looks like A class can only be given at the WikiProjects (like WikiProject Canada or WikiProject Rock Music, whatever the article is part of), but the projects don't have A class reviews. If the review is conducted at the page linked to in the peer review, would you mind showing me how to do it? (Total n00b here) Cheers, Ink Runner (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ki-Jana Carter

Doesn't that Yahoo Sports story itself say that Carter was one of several former Penn State backs who didn't have a very good career in the NFL? Blueboy96 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Travelling Tragotion

See [1]! Btw:

--Say Headcheese!--hexaChord² 11:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Democracy

Hello, I would like to inform you of this discussion. There is agreement that the nomination is premature and the article shouldn't be nominated until several weeks after the album is issued. Please withdraw the nomination and resubmit at a later date. The article is very good, but it will still change quite dramatically. We hope you won't feel let down by this and look forward to you resubmitting the piece in due course. Thank you and sincere regards. — Realist² 22:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's Chinese Democracy you are working on, that's BH related and we could do it under the Task Force banner. I don't see the project too narrow, quite the contrary. But do as you wish, you're always welcome. And, yeah, I will remind your note in the future. Didn't think this would vanish that fast though. --Say Headcheese!--hexaChord² 22:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Plitt

Hi. I declined the speedy deletion of Stephanie Plitt because the article does assert a limited notability, even though the claim is unreferenced. I agree it is potentially a hoax, but except for blatant cases, AfD is preferred for suspected hoax articles. Euryalus (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - there's a fine (and slightly subjective) line between blatant hoaxes (which are speediable) and other potential hoaxes which aren't. This was pretty close to that line, but AfD is not only a good default option but also a successful AfD means the article may not be recreated per CSD:#G4. Euryalus (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles

Read Talk: The Beatles/Archive 18#Former members because during The Beatles' entire recording history from 1962 to 1970, the lineup of John, Paul, George and Ringo was stable. So they are all listed as "current members" based on consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you tried previously in Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_17#former.2F_current_members. Give up. You will not prevail again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

Hi Luke. At the risk of being an annoyance, or coming across as resisting change, I have reverted your insertion of headings again. As I stated on the talk page, if headings are to be used, they should be accompanied by this template, as used in the "discography" section of the article: {{main|Pink Floyd discography}} which produces:

Main article: Pink Floyd discography

Even though you didn't address my concerns about the headings turning the paragraphs' topics into a discussion of the albums rather than band history, or ask for consensus when a change is challenged, I'll agree to their being included if they also include the templates, which I believe are a formatting standard at WP.

But the bigger reason for the revert is your removal of "unsourced statements" which have "fact" tags dated November 2008. It is standard practice to wait a reasonable time for the person who inserted the questionable content to re-check their sources and improve the article; this is why tags are dated, and why the date is only a month instead of month/day. Although there are no explicit directions on how long to wait, the use of the month suggests waiting at least 2 months before removing info like this, unless you believe the info to be highly unlikely (and I see no reason why this would be the case here), in which case you should remove the content (not even bother tagging it) but also leave a note on the contributor's talk page (or the article's talk page) inviting them to add it back with proper citation.

A few PS's: When you removed one of the unsourced statements, you left behind a bit in brackets, which would make no sense after the removal. I also see you reverted the use of quotes instead of italics on Household Objects. As I understand it, this was a proposed album title, rather than a song title, so italics are correct. You also removed the word "The" at the beginning of The Dark Side of the Moon. The longer name is the original title. While it's true that one of the many CD releases does remove the word, this appears to have been done unintentionally. There is no indication the label or band were deliberately trying to change the title decades after its original release, and even if they were, we would probably prefer to use the original title in the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: rosters

Sure, I forgot about that so I'll add it. As far as Campbell goes, he never signed a contract (the Army changed its rules just before he would have), so he can't go on Reserve/Military (the last player to do so was Kyle Eckel). His rights remain with the Lions until the end of the league year, when he will be re-entered into the draft-eligible pool. Pats1 ^T/C 01:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability and citations

Zealously removing uncited material is counter productive. Wikis work most effectively when people add unsourced material, any questionable material gets challenged, differences get discussed and citations are added. This is the natural progression of articles. Removing material that is obviously correct (like "Sight and Sound" and Citazen Kane) helps nobody, goes against WP:AGF, and makes people wonder about your motives. Every article has unsourced material. Since this is a wiki, thousands of people will see the article, and incorrect material will be removed and challenged. Let the process happen. The amount of time you and I have spent reverting material back and forth could have been spent finding citations. Articles get perfected when you improve what is there, and only remove things when you must. Wikipedia did not spring forth out of the Internet ether fully formed and cited. It evolved. I suggest you look through the history of some of our featured articles and see some of their earliest edits. Usually there was just a stub, then several paragraphs with no citations, etc... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A certain report to AIV

I declined the report as being not blatent vandalism, suggesting it got taken to ANI, and it has now been removed (by another) as stale. I don't know how you wish to proceed with this, but such reports to AIV are likely not to be the best method (some admins might be a bit protective, etc.) Just my thoughts on this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo isn't likely to do anything, but it is going to be seen by a lot of people... I don't think you are achieving anything here, but it is your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: My earlier message

I must apologise Luke. I have no excuses for my behaviour earlier and I shall not attempt to make any. But I must be honest; I did not appreciate your posting the picture of the trout, I did not appreciate being templated like that and, in regards to SlayerXT and his socks, I was acting in good faith and doing as any admin would have done. SlayerXT knows of our policies and he knows what not do. His blatant and continuous socking was disruptive and he has been warned many times. Once again, I apologise for my unprovoked attack and, quite rightly, have been desysopped. See you around, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)