User talk:Lumberjake
 | The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets) |
Trading card - my bad
Sorry about that! I was doing recent changes patrol, and at this time of day, there's a hell of a lot of vandalism; looking at your edit I just saw a load of content removed from the top of the page, and the capitalised edit summary, I was a bit trigger-happy and rollbacked your edit, but then I realised I balls-up and reverted back. Keep editing, you're doing well! EJF (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ha ha... thanks! I don't have the stamina to patrol RC, so I'm glad you're doing it :P Lumberjake (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Orphan articles
It's great that you are working on orphan articles, but you should not link to them just to link to them. When you do add a link, it should be appropriate for the section. For example, the link you added to Dave Astels in Extreme Programming's See Also section is not appropriate. The See Also section usually contains links to other topical articles and generally not people unless that person who integral to that topic's development. So taking that example, Dave Astels would be only linked if he was the first to propose Extreme Programming. A better link for Dave Astels would be in the RSpec article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Uh, "non-standard formatting"?
Re your message: Yes, the format you added was not the usual standard for all of the other day articles. While I understand your concern, you should discuss such a change with the community and gain a consensus before making such a wide scale change. Additionally, the comment you added to May 15's warning about inserting non-notable people, while certainly true, was not appropriate. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- To follow-up to myself, the best place to begin to gain consensus would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re your message: You just proposed to change the formatting for all 366 articles. That is indeed a wide-scale change. Additionally, with there being a WikiProject devoted to maintaining the style guide for the days of the year pages, it is best if you join the discussion there before you make any changes to the style of the articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, following up to myself again after looking at this some more. Your reformatting and other similar sections have been proposed in the past and consensus was to not make the change. See the WikiProject's discussion page along with the past archives. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that was different entirely. Lumberjake (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re your message: While the proposal on the current talk page was not exactly the same as yours, the general idea of adding subsections has been proposed before and the consensus was not to make the change. For example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 5#Year subheaders and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 4#20th Century subheadings. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why does anyone care? Honestly... anyone can edit... !!!!
- Re your message: While the proposal on the current talk page was not exactly the same as yours, the general idea of adding subsections has been proposed before and the consensus was not to make the change. For example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 5#Year subheaders and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 4#20th Century subheadings. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly be more useful if you explained in your edit summary why you think the prod was wrong, instead of putting in something meaningless. Corvus cornixtalk 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Lumberjake. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
AN/I
Stop being disruptive by editing others' comments. east.718 at 19:50, February 1, 2008
What the hell?
Lumberjake (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=What have I ever done to get blocked...? I realize I was kind of a jerk when I first arrived, but still... this is madness. John Reaves and I were in an argument on IRC (which I can post, if needed) where he stated that he didn't like me and thought I was another user (apparently [[User:Flameviper|Flameviper]]), and then he blocked me on-wiki as well, saying we had the same IP, as well as associating me with an apparently random vandal-only account. I'm using a proxy, I'd assume that since both of the other banned users are, well, banned, they'd be using a proxy as well and we'd have the same IP. Reaves appears to be operating on his own agenda (something he told me on IRC), and I'm here to edit. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=What have I ever done to get blocked...? I realize I was kind of a jerk when I first arrived, but still... this is madness. John Reaves and I were in an argument on IRC (which I can post, if needed) where he stated that he didn't like me and thought I was another user (apparently [[User:Flameviper|Flameviper]]), and then he blocked me on-wiki as well, saying we had the same IP, as well as associating me with an apparently random vandal-only account. I'm using a proxy, I'd assume that since both of the other banned users are, well, banned, they'd be using a proxy as well and we'd have the same IP. Reaves appears to be operating on his own agenda (something he told me on IRC), and I'm here to edit. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=What have I ever done to get blocked...? I realize I was kind of a jerk when I first arrived, but still... this is madness. John Reaves and I were in an argument on IRC (which I can post, if needed) where he stated that he didn't like me and thought I was another user (apparently [[User:Flameviper|Flameviper]]), and then he blocked me on-wiki as well, saying we had the same IP, as well as associating me with an apparently random vandal-only account. I'm using a proxy, I'd assume that since both of the other banned users are, well, banned, they'd be using a proxy as well and we'd have the same IP. Reaves appears to be operating on his own agenda (something he told me on IRC), and I'm here to edit. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}