User talk:Lumberjake
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
This page is currently protected from editing to prevent Lumberjake (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template. If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here. |
Contents |
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)
-
-
-
Christos Karamanolis
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. Yours,
Your block
I think your capricious de-prodding with Bohemian Rhapsody lyrics in the edit summaries has been concerning. Dlohcierekim 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Concerning, but not deserving of a block... Lumberjake (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
What the hell?
This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:
- Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
- Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
- Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
- Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this:
= Article title =) - Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
- When are you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.
If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Addhoc (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly care for your attacks against the blocking admin, but since the reason for this block is not immediately apparent, I'll request comment by the blocking admin. Sandstein (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, although I doubt Reaves will be useful as far as impartial sources go. I'm not sure where I git into any of this, but he started agressively trolling on IRC and accusing me of having the same IP as banned users. Lumberjake (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The block note said you're a sock of Flameviper based on CU evidence. What do you have to say to that? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- He can't say anything here because the page is protected. I would like to see on-wiki evidence or a checkuser's testimony for this user's identification as Flameviper before I close this unblock request, and have so informed the blocking admin. If such evidence is not forthcoming, this block may be need to be discussed on WP:ANI. Sandstein (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The block note said you're a sock of Flameviper based on CU evidence. What do you have to say to that? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The blocking admin said he talked to a CU and that there was a correlation. We should be, absent reason not to, taking our fellow admins words for things. Nevertheless, I'm the CU that ran this and there is a legitimate connection to KONATA KONATA KONATA (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email), already indefinitely blocked for disruption, so unblock requests should be declined, as the connection or non connection to Flameviper is additional info, not the primary reason. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
