User talk:Luke4545

Welcome!

Hello, Luke4545, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 06:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Rockets seasons

Thank you for updating the page. Cheers, Basketball 110 _{the pages I've messed up completely} 05:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I actually try to update the records of all of the teams in the NBA when I have the opportunity. -- Luke4545 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Rollins page

Yes, I know that the info was posted without source. As a member of the Phillies WikiProject, that article is on our list to acquire sources and so I wanted to make sure that particular information didn't go by the wayside because it had been removed, so I went digging for a source last night. Thanks. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Orignal Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Presented to Luke4545 (talk · contribs) for an impressive body of contributions to Colorado and national sports articles on Wikipedia, and for your generous willingness to lend us your expertise and time in these areas. This award is long overdue! I award you this Original Barnstar. Thank you. With sincere regards, LanceBarber (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Service Badge

I present to you, Luke4545, your 2,000/6-month Service Badge:

Please copy this Badge to your Userpage, and also, see the wiki Service Badge link for periodic updates for advance badges.

Also, you are invited to add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado Participants list and add the Colo userbox to your Userpage. This summer, I hope to host a local Colorado wiki-editor's get-together somewhere in the Denver area. Watch the Project page for an announcement. Hope you will join this first time event.

Thank you again for your hard wiki-work, with best regards, Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tech B-star

Luke, Thank you so much for the Technology Barnstar, most appreciated! Lance...LanceBarber (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism debris (HUGE debris) on Tracy McGrady, I hereby award this barnstar to you. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 15:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

Thanks! ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catherine Deneuve. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have violated the three-revert rule. Consider dispute resolution, but do not continuously revert. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't see how I violated 3RR when the rule clearly states that "an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The key word there is "more." I did not perform more than three reverts on the Catherine Deneuve article within a 24-hour period. Please check the revision history again.

Secondly, as I said in the requests for page protection article, I urged the person behind the IP to engage fully in discussions BEFORE going through with any full-scale edits; however, the user continuously made those unconstructive/unnecessary full-scale edits without waiting until any conclusions/compromises were laid out. I think this is extremely important to understand as to the reasoning behind why I made those reversions. There was a similar situation that occurred a couple of months ago between me and another user in the same Catherine Deneuve article, and the administrators that handled that situation seemed to factor in that concept; thus, 3RR-based blocks were not issued following cases that were filed. I'm not saying that every single administrator should act the same way, but I think this is significant to note. Once semi-protection was granted in the previous situation, that other user finally engaged in full discussions, and a constructive resolution was soon reached. That's what I was hoping for in this situation as well. I hope you'll now understand where I'm coming from. Thanks. -- Luke4545 (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I'm not clear about what the discussion is based on in general. Thank you for not making further edits to the article (I said on the IP's talk page that you'd both done it, but that was a typo). My suggestion is now to get over to the talk page and discuss, as I've told the IP. I will give two days of discussion, monitored by me, and if you fail to agree after then, then a request for comment will be opened. This just means that other editors will be able to comment on both arguments, and hopefully consensus will be clear about which it should be. Thanks again for not letting me down. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opened

I've opened the RfC on the talk page. Please add further (brief outlines) if needed. If I'm in error as to the subject of the dispute, feel free to change it. I'm off to bed now. :) I'll watch tomorrow. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.108.119.24

Please read my comments, and leave a message on my talk page if you need further assistance. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your message. I'm not an administrator, but if things are the way you say they are, that would be valid grounds for semi-protection. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Aurora, CO

Hi, I noticed you undid my revision to the Aurora, CO's "Education" section. Could you please explain what is "unconstructive/unnecessary" about my edit? What value do the organizations under the "Education" section provide to the article that Columbia College does not? Thanks. Columbiacollege.prm (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those schools are based in Aurora, Colorado, which is not the case for Columbia College. I know there's a related campus in Aurora, but as I said, Columbia College isn't actually based in Aurora. Virtually every single "Education" section (at least from what I've seen), in the various city pages on Wikipedia, only include schools that are actually based in that city. I'm assuming that the reasoning behind this is that there are many schools that have related campuses located in cities across the country and including them all would just be a rather tedious and unnecessary task. If you really feel that Columbia College should be included, then I suggest discussing that in the WikiProject Cities discussion page to see what others think, too. As I said, though, judging from the content of the "Education" sections in all of the city articles I've seen, only schools that are actually based in those cities are included. -- Luke4545 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fellini and Masina

Hi! Grace to your edit explanations, I now realise that the infobox "spouse" entry refers to years married. Having rinsed the egg off my face, I just wanted to say thanks and best wishes. --Jumbolino 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. Take care. -- Luke4545 (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Actually for blocks the only reliable info is the block log as admins may forget to put a notice and blocked accounts can still edit their own talk pages. E.g you can see when Wikitestor was blocked at [[1]]. Anywyas, it is indeed sad if things go that far. --Tikiwont (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckethead task force?

You are invited to join the Buckethead task force, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to avant-garde guitarist Buckethead. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ~~~~

--Say Headcheese!--hexaChord² 00:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work!

Hi, just wanted to thank you for your help fighting vandalism while Joe Sakic was on the main page, noticed that you had reverted many edits on my watchlist. Regards! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there was definitely a ton of vandalism on that article. Anyway, thanks for the message! -- Luke4545 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Christmas was yesterday: Happy New Year!

Happy new Headcheese!-hexaChord² 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, why did you delete my post on the chargers vs broncos on nfl lore. please reply bobmonkey77