User talk:Lukejordan02/2014 Archive

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Lukejordan02. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lukejordan02. You have new messages at Skamecrazy123's talk page.
Message added 00:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lukejordan02. You have new messages at Skamecrazy123's talk page.
Message added 00:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Lukejordan02, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Büttner

The source would be considered reliable if it said that the transfer was actually complete, but as you can see from the second paragraph, "some technical details need to be resolved before the contract is finalised". I have no doubt that Büttner will complete his transfer to Dynamo in the next couple of days, as I notice he is already training with the club, but to say that the transfer is already complete is inaccurate. – Pee Jay 19:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, and I apologise for jumping to conclusions about your message. Looking forward to watching your development as a Wikipedian! – Pee Jay 20:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

Just FYI, regarding your changes at 2014 FIFA World Cup squads, now that your changes have been reverted, you must explain why you are making them on the talk page and allow a full discussion to take place. You can see the policy behind this at WP:BRD. – Pee Jay 14:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting the discussion, but that does not give you carte blanche to carry on making the same changes. WP:BRD is clear that the article should remain in its original state until the discussion yields a consensus. – Pee Jay 15:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, man. It's just that the World Cup squad articles have existed in the same state for so many years that it rather behoves us all to have a proper discussion about their format before changing them wholesale (and I say that because if we change one, we really ought to change them all). I can't imagine it will take long for more people to chime in and develop a consensus. In the meantime, does it really look that bad to have them in numerical order? – Pee Jay 15:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know the world is not going to end if they aren't in position order but I really was just trying to help improve the page and thought if they match the nations own pages, it would keep it similar whilst making the squads easier to view, I understand about reaching consensus and should of discussed first and I also understand your opinion like I have said in the past I respect you as an editor as I can see all the work you have done to keep the football pages in check. What do you think about them being in position order? Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not a fan. I can see the benefits, but I'm a firm believer in following the example set by the sources; FIFA orders the squads numerically (see here and here). Furthermore, players' positions are pretty fluid; for example, we might describe a player as a midfielder when in fact he's more of a forward or a defender, and if readers are looking at that article to find out who a player was from an earlier game, they're more likely to look for him based on his shirt number, not the position he was playing. – Pee Jay 15:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Youth League squad

Basically, we've kept that squad the same all season, despite a couple of players having left already (see also Nicolas Ioannou). I think the best method would be to delete the entire squad since the season is now over, but since the squad is for a particular competition, we should leave the same squad until the entire list is deleted. – Pee Jay 09:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't occurred to me before today, but I'd have deleted it at least a month ago. So anytime you like, really. – Pee Jay 09:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would, yes. Don't be surprised if someone reverts, but I doubt anyone will. – Pee Jay 10:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's accurate. I haven't seen a list of players the club have released, at least not on ManUtd.com, so I have to assume the squad remains as-is. – Pee Jay 16:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images

Maybe we ought to leave a few blue linked items. It shows visitors that red linked items are actively being created. Just something to consider. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's best then that's OK with me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also restored the image gallery at the parent page. No offence, and you may have been right in removing it. But, per WP:BRD, please start a discussion about its removal if you wish. I feel that it has been a long-standing asset to the page, and helps get articles created. Best wishes, and please don't be offended. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome job!

You're getting the hang of this. :) LiberatorLX (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24.102.148.42

Hello, how are you? Have you seen this IP before? He's usually picking on editors that don't update articles the way he wants and it just goes on and on. He probably thinks he's the owner of truth and has been edit warring all day long. Unfortunately I try to correct it and end up reverting a lot than needed. Check his contributions and this stuff. Should we name it for a block? I'd like some insight and support. He's definitely being a pain in the ass and you've seen that. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That IP certainly thinks they no best and doesn't care what anyone else thinks, I think we should name it for a block as they have been disruptively editing for days on end now. Lukejordan02 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demba Ba

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Demba Ba, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Reliable sourced need to be cited in the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for the message, I made them edits with a reliable source in mind but hadn't yet added it as I wasn't sure where was best to put it on the page, I will put the link here and kindly ask if you could help to add it to the page, cheers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2694288/Demba-Ba-tweets-Im-Besiktas-Chelsea-striker-lands-Turkey-complete-move.html Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for understanding. Even though the title of the DM article stats the move is complete, Ba is quoted as saying in that article "all that is left is a few formalities, I will undergo a medical and sign the contract". Also the Chelsea and Besiktas official sites, and the BBC, have not confirmed the move. So I think it's still too early to update Ba's club. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just as long as you no I made a mistake I really did think the deal had gone through, I myself get very frustrated when editors keep changing teams when deals haven't even be made and find myself constantly reminding editors about waiting until it actually happens (if it ever does.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine Tree

the fact that you are a fan of the band don't give you the right to undo edits of other users, besides, there is no reason for "big note", about release, there are articles about videos with the same content, but there is no informations about charts, my changes are accurate Titancards (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with me being "a fan of the band" it's to do with the fact that you removed large sourced information without first discussing it on the talk page. Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's a lie, there is no sources/references, i did not removed any sourced informations Titancards (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did and you made major changes without first discussing them on he articles talk page, if you revert it again I will report you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

happy now ? Titancards (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't no what your showing me? Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you wanted to keep notes, so the notes are still in article, plus changes that i have made Titancards (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you click them letters nothing pops up if you fix that, I will remove the report and leave you changes, deal?Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it works, maybe it's your browser, i did use the same code as in Meshuggah article Titancards (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the report as have now discussed the edits and I don't see a problem anymore. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

As I already explained, there already have been discussions, and the majority of people concluded it would be better to use their/are rather than its/is. This discussion doesn't need to be had again. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting involved, I was just offering my friendly advice because I don't want to see you or him getting blocked. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Manchester United F.C. season

I don't think protection is necessary. If we just explain the situation on the article talk page, we can then point to that when reverting. I don't think the disruptive edits are prevalent enough for us not to be able to handle them. – Pee Jay 23:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Evra

Finally.

Number 1 - sign your comments and number 2 - it has only just been officially announced so all the times you changed it before was incorrect and was rightly reverted by myself or others. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death metal

hi, i'm looking for someone to help me with spelling, and grammar in this article Music_of_Poland#Death_metal_scene, i'm not native speaker, and i have some difficulties in writing that much of text, a the time even adding sources is pointless, i would really appreciate your help Titancards (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reworded it but you will have to re-add the references. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much Titancards (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly stats

No, friendlies are never listed in the statistics table, and nor should they be. The figures in brackets are substitute appearances. – Pee Jay 17:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, buddy. – Pee Jay 17:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought you were being deliberately malevolent, you'd know about it by now. I'll give those edits a check now. – Pee Jay 18:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, everything's fine. I re-did it all myself anyway, and I don't think there were any differences apart from the line break you inserted in the list of goalscorers. – Pee Jay 19:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League

Because once they've been played, they're results, not fixtures, and the result is a matter of public record. To publish fixtures, you have to have a licence granted to you by a company called Football DataCo, which costs a buttload of money. Interestingly, those rules only apply to the Premier League, the Football League (including the League Cup) and the Scottish leagues. The FA Cup and any UEFA fixtures are completely fair game. – Pee Jay 20:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. – Pee Jay 20:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's one of the biggest scams in football history. However, because of the clever way in which they put the fixture lists together (there's a lot of variables to consider), I believe there was a court that ruled that sufficient original thought had to go into the fixtures that they could be copyrighted and therefore licensed. The price, however, is a fucking joke. – Pee Jay 20:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the season article

You may be right, I think. It may be worth recommending the article for semi-protection at WP:RFPP and then we can see what they say. – Pee Jay 12:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C.

Nope, he's not listed there anymore! Mattythewhite (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake I thought he was number 45 and he's number 55. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Flames

listen, really don't want to do the whole back and forth about the genera so please reach a compromise with me that booth genera's are present in the in flames albums cause that's totally cool its just not ok to place them in one category when the album is for everyone in every category i would really appreciate if we could just have booth genera's listed so we don't have to keep going and changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaneDemon (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your making this personal like it is to do with me and it's not, if you read the hidden message you would see there is a consensus on the talk page for Melodic Death Metal not to be included and until that changes it won't be, so start a discussion on the albums talk page. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool

Given the players were named in the match day squad - as per the referenced BBC article they have squad numbers - why have you removed my edit? One player is now notable under WP:GNG as well as he made his Football League debut towards the end of the match. Zanoni (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not listed on the official Blackpool website and aren't apart of the first team they only appeared due to the lack of players. I wasn't the first to remove your edit neither another user who has been a user of Wikipedia for about eight years removed your edits first and then I did, which can only me he agrees as well. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The time editing point is irrelevant - i've been editing wikipedia for over 8 years as well, mainly around football related articles. That said, it's not about time of editing, it's about adding sourced content. Whilst the Blackpool website doesn't yet feature the players - as they were only given match day numbers today because there's a shortage of players - they have been now - and one of them played for the first team. Whilst my first edit was not sourced - and should have been, the second has a source - and is consistent with other squads (for example Liverpool. I'm trying to build consensus by a discussion, but believe I'm correct to add with a source I'm suggesting that the way forward is that I re-add with source - and if you disagree - then suggest it's put up for discussion at WP:WPF under the talk section. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football Zanoni (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way Wikipedia works Wikipedia:BRD it is up to you to make a consensus to add it not for me to remove it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - i'll raise it Zanoni (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem, thanks for doing the right thing, best of luck. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Blackpool F.C. season

I noticed that you reverted my edit for the 2014–15 Blackpool F.C. season. Are you aware that WP:NSEASONS states that "team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players." My edit was to make this possible. Kingjeff (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that but the layout was completely changed such as trasfers being moved to the top when they are always nearly listed last, take a look at the previous season page and the layout and see how that one looked. Kind regards Luke. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem now. Where the article has "Season summary", I usually put "Background" and I put transfers section as a subsection of that. Another issue is that the football collapsible template violates MOS:Collapse and should be replaced by a table. Kingjeff (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the template is the same on all of the football pages, so there would have to be a discussion before that was to be changed and sorry for any misunderstanding. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every club season article has the collapsible template. some German club season articles like 2014–15 FC Schalke 04 season have tables as opposed to templates. This is also the case for 2014–15 Manchester United F.C. season article. Currently, there is a discussion going on here about possibly having a new MOS for club season articles. Kingjeff (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, until something comes of it on the discussion you mentioned then the old one will still be used. I don't really see a problem with the one at the minute and think it should only be changed for a new one, if the new one is better but that's just my opinion. Lukejordan02 (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia CF

Hey man,

Sorry about the revert. Sometimes the newspaper goes wrong too. Personally, I think they only should introduce this type of headline when the player truly signs, not when it's only a rumour. Confuses a great amount of people (including me sometimes).

Cheers :) MYS 77 ^✉ 19:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we all make mistakes and it does gets confusing when one newspaper says one thing and another says something else. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old (song)

Hey, I saw you PROD'd Old (song). Since there are no references or any mention of notability, you can probably just redirect it to the Burn My Eyes page.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: Manchester United 2014-15 season

Hi, no sorry it is result by matchday, which is the position after all matches the day united played. In this case after Arsenal against Crystal palace. QED237 (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've always done it as the position at the end of that day. The sources I've used for previous years all did it at the end of each day, and that's what Statto.com does too, so I guess we can be happy with that. – Pee Jay 19:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, now I no. :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm Booyahhayoob. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Tony Hibbert without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Booyahhayoob (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually ready the paragraph I removed you could of saved me and you time. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of ECW pay-per-view events

All of your changes since May 31st have been controversial. Seek a consensus on the talk page before implementing these ridiculous edits. It looks like User:MB1972 was trying to restore the encyclopedic nature of the article and you proceeded to edit war. Read WP:BRD. You are entitled to make changes as you see fit, but if others disagree (which I strongly do), you will be reverted and encouraged to discuss the changes on the talk page. Explain why you feel things like Hardcore Justice and multiple main events should be included, and see if others agree. If you gain a consensus, you can implement the changes, but beyond this point, you have any change you make is vandalism as you are now aware that these edits are not bold, and are instead disruptive. Feedback ^☎ 20:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you must be either a new editor or a complete fool, I was not the first to make the edits someone else was all I have done is kept the page as was until a consensus was reached, it is not up to me but rather the editor who is trying to make the changes to get a consensus going. I suggest YOU read BRD. BOLD REVERT DISCUSS, they was bold I reverted and now it's up to him to discuss NOT ME, It doesn't go BOLD REVERT REVERT. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually did your research you would see the TNA - Hardcore Justice PPV was added to the page on 18 of February a full month plus before I ever even edited the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ECW_pay-per-view_events&diff=596074594&oldid=590580798 And the "Multiple Main Events" was added on 3 of June by user:Makeblake once again nothing to do with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ECW_pay-per-view_events&diff=611350649&oldid=610866513 User:MB1972 then came along and started editing the article to please his self without considering any one else or discussing the matter on the talk page. So get you facts straight before you start chatting shit. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Between April 30 and June 5, you, 178.132.219.1 and User:Makeblake made all of these changes, which were not approved by consensus. These changes were reverted on August 18 by User:MB1972. There is no expiration date on when an unapproved edit can be reverted due to the possibility of disruptions slipping through the cracks. You are a relatively new editor who is being bold and proactive, and I salute you for that, but when you make large changes, they will almost always be met with opposition. Discussion is a good thing. You should open a section on the talk page to explain why you feel that the edits I first linked to are beneficial to the article. If you and 178.132.219.1 are the same person, it is best you disclose that immediately so you can defend your contributions under both aliases. Please correct me if I am wrong. Feedback ^☎ 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did edit the page between them dates (I never said I didn't) but I only made small changes such as correcting wording and other minor fixes the main events were added by another user (in good faith I didn't see anyone else lining up to do this) and then MB1972 come waltzing in weeks after and reverted the changes for no good reason, I understand BRD but the edits were made ages ago and although what you said is true about there being no time restriction the reverting he made didn't seem to be in good faith and rather to control the page. I agree discussion is a good thing and that is why it would be in the best interest of everyone if that user discussed why he thinks the edits should be reverted. And no I am not the same person as the IP editor you can get wikipedia to investigate if you don't believe me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all your points, but here's the deal. User:MB1972 posted a discussion on WT:PW regarding the issue. I investigated his complaints and agreed with him so I reverted your edit. Your edits are against various standing WP:PW consensuses, like only listing the final match as a main event. I'm fine with you reverting my edit, because you sound like a smart guy who's open to having the discussion and then taking it from there. The problem is that most WP:PW members are not aware of the conversation we are having here right now. They will all see the thread, agree with MB, and then edit the page. That's why User:Oknazevad has just reverted your revert. Seeing as that was your 6th revert in the past 29 hours, I implore you to stay away from the page despite anyone else taking action on the article. If not, the project has no choice but to report you to WP:AN3. As for the IP, it looks like he edits every single article you do. It's either you or you have yourself a wikistalker. Feedback ^☎ 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in to point out that Lukejordan02 lives in England (according to User:Lukejordan02), while 178.132.219.1 is an Albanian IP address (according to this). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding and like I said the IP isn't me and you can (and I encourage you) to get whoever you need to prove it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Feedback, I have reverted my self (I know self reverting is exempt from 3RR) and have left the other user a message explaining everything, thanks for the help. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, it looks like the situation is diffused. However, I don't want you to feel that you were cornered into giving up you stance. I encourage you to add your name to start a section on WT:PW voicing your concerns about the article. And since you like editing pro wrestling articles, I think you should consider putting your name on the members list and joining our little community. It used to be huge around 07-10, and has been having highs and lows throughout the years, but it's the best place to discuss changes for various articles. If you want to talk about the format of ECW and WCW PPVs so they stay consistent, I implore you to do so on that page. It looks like User:MB1972 has done a massive Page 1 re-write to the WCW article, and he probably did things you'll disagree with. Go to WT:PW and start the discussion. As for the IP, I don't know what to say, I checked his contributions, and he edits before & after you. It's quite bizarre. If you're really from England, you should post something on his talk page and ask why he is following you. It isn't the first time it happens on Wikipedia. Feedback ^☎ 03:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concern, I didn't give up because I felt cornered but rather because my concern of consistency between the list of PPVs for WCW and ECW was sorted due to the edit you mentioned above. I have added my name to the members list. As for the IP, I think its nothing more than a coincidence, looking at his history apart from the wrestling articles there is nothing else the same. He has edited articles of Albania singers such as Era Istrefi and Adelina Ismajli (never heard of either of them.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California King Bed

Can you revert edit by 97.83.67.162? Because composition section says "elements of rock". 183.171.171.130 (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the genre has been on there for ages, you will need to start a discussion on the articles talk page and get a consensus to remove it, otherwise the other user will be in the right to revert under BRD. Kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lukejordan02. You have new messages at CRRaysHead90's talk page.
Message added 12:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 12:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Start

Sounds good to me! Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Manchester United F.C. season

Sorry Luke, I don't think I'll be doing that. The link to the list of United seasons is readily available in the header of the club seasons navbox as well as the overall club navbox, so the "See also" section is totally unnecessary. Hope you understand. – Pee Jay 15:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you started deleting them yourself. Do you actually disagree with me or did you just get tired of deleting them from every page? – Pee Jay 16:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The truth, tired of deleting them from every page and also worried about pretentiously breaking a voluntary 0RR, but if you have time and want to delete them from all pages, that's fine sorry to bother you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACCESS

Hey, just wanted to let you know that on Wikipedia, we don't use fake subheadings by putting a semicolon in front. Per WP:ACCESS, only proper subheading levels (using =) should be used. I fixed your edit to New American Gospel. Just FYI. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if that's the case then why do all the other Lamb of God albums have it like it I copied the idea straight from the other albums? Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because no one has gotten around to fixing them yet. I would suggest this is a good thing for you to do. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will do :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaha

Sure, Sky Sports is a very reliable source, but until either club confirms the deal, it's not official. Sky Sports can claim it's done until the cows come home, but if the clubs aren't acknowledging the transfer, it rather flies in the face of any other reports. – Pee Jay 18:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quotes

Please do not alter direct quotes. You can trim them up, but you can't just edit out something, like a genre mentioned in the middle of a sentence, without indicating it was trimmed. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Sorry, I didn't realise it was a quote and thought it was just explaining about some of the most popular songs on the album. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James W Gibson

I have left you a message on the comment you sent to me - sorry, very new so trying to work out how to message!

Can you please confirm reason why you reverted the entry back on James Gibson. The reference sources were input. Not sure how you see it as inappropriate bearing in mind the information included was all factual and sources back this up. Please can you explain as your current entry is incomplete and also inaccurate and this needs to be rectified. Many thanks and look forward to hearing from you.Ace7007 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ace7007: I think you have the wrong user mate, I haven't sent you any message, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your after @PeeJay2K3: Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Thanks for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace7007 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, also remember to sign your comments :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:In Flames - Siren Charms (album cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Author info

If an author is mentioned, they should always be listed, if only out of courtesy. If you wrote something professionally and didn't get the credit for it when that article was quoted elsewhere, you wouldn't be happy about that, would you? – Pee Jay 23:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me how to add the missing ones then, cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are missing the info? If they're not listed on the cited page, we can't add them. – Pee Jay 23:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hernandez article by James Tuck. Nick Powell, Michael Keane and Tom Cleverley articles by Adam Marshall. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, based on how they're done for the other authors, how would you suggest they be done for those? – Pee Jay 00:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rubbish at the whole "citation" area, I find them awkward to do. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Wikipedia requires citations, I suggest we find a way to make them less awkward for you to do. And besides, it looks like you added the authors to those other articles pretty well. – Pee Jay 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's the order that gets me and before I was putting both names in the same section. BTW, it looks like its a good thing United didn't get Vidal. :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off bonus tracks

Hey, just wanted to let you know there's no need to split off bonus tracks from an album unless there's multiple versions with different bonus track listings. Using the note field to denote bonus tracks is perfectly fine per Template:Track listing. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's also nothing wrong with it, it keeps it more separate and makes it easier for viewers to see. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still unnecessary. Generally, we should stick with the established formatting style for an article unless a good reason arises to change it (such as multiple versions with different bonus track listings). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue with you and I do understand your point but the fact that someone else made the same edit on a different Opeth album (Pale Communion) before me must mean I am not alone in thinking it helps keep the page tidy. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think multiple listings is more untidy than tidy (everything consolidated vs multiple listings). Again, this is supported by Template:Track listing. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but keeping them separate makes it easier for readers with (for example) bad eye-site and makes it clear to readers that these tracks are not apart of the actual album and are rather add-ons (something that could be easily missed how it is) and the page you linked doesn't say that it shouldn't be used this way it is rather a matter of personal taste, by the way how come you have reverted them all except the Pale Communion one? Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is something where we'll have to agree to disagree. The template documentation explicitly says the note field is useful for denoting bonus tracks; this supports the current use in those articles.

The reason I didn't change the Pale Communion edit is due to what I said earlier: "Generally, we should stick with the established formatting style for an article unless a good reason arises to change it". As you pointed out, the template documentation doesn't prohibit this, so this is where it again comes down to the established formatting style. The first editor to add the bonus tracks to PC split them off; thus, this is the established formatting style. On the other album articles, to the best of my knowledge they were split off after the fact, unnecessarily. If you want, feel free to look through each article's history, starting at the beginning, and see if this holds true for each article (I'm pretty sure it does, but it's possible I missed something the last time I looked; it was a while ago). If it doesn't, reply here with a diff, and I'll take a look. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMoustacheMM: I remember when it was added here and it wasn't split until here Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch. I think I left it because the writing credits might take up too much space in the note field (and the standard edition track listing shouldn't have the writing credits column enabled). I guess the question is, do we need the writing credits there? I know I undid your removal of them, but that was because you gave no explanation for why you did it (which you really need to start doing; using the edit summary to explain your initial changes can go a long way towards avoiding disagreements). I think we could remove those (and count the "[band] cover" credit as sufficient writing credits), then consolidate the track listings. What do you think? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not using the edit summary first time round. That's exactly what I had in mind when I first removed the writing credits (band cover) is as good as a writing credit. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward....

Alright Luke - I think it's time we get started moving forward. I see you've been editing your userpage quite a bit, which is fine, but I'd like to get started with your mentoring. I'm going to spend a couple of hours getting some subpages set up for you. In the meantime, I'd like for you to (if you're okay with it) setting up an account at TestWiki so we can do things without risk of you messing anything up ;) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be willing to create an account on that but could you explain to me what it actually is. I have checked the link out but would like it explaining what it would mean for me (if that OK.) On a separate note I would like to say I have extreme confidence in myself as I am done with genres, that's it for me and genres, someone could change a Metallica article from Thrash Metal to Grove Metal and I don't care because every block I have ever got has been to do with genres so by completely discarding that from my editing is solving the problem. I am looking forward to a fresh approach to my editing and to proving to you and @Wifione: that all the time and patience you have had with me wasn't a waste. And lastly is there anyway I could private message you as I want to discuss a few things. Cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to email me at dusti(at)orain(dot)org. I'll be around for a little bit longer. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I've sent it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, I'm sure you've followed the discussion in the section above this one. What are your thoughts about adding what Dusti suggested to your editing restrictions?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If your referring to the mention of a possible no changing genres restriction than that's absolutely fine as like I said I am done with that area of editing. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have messages and assignments waiting for you at TestWiki. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Dusti: I've done it, sorry it's took so long to do. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Dusti: Finished session 3. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:King Crimson - In the Court of the Crimson King (Album cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UFC Fight Night Silva vs. Arlovski Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Troma films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Body Parts. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King bibliography

Thanks for tidying up the table but "Riding the Bullet" and "The New Lieutenant's Rap" were both first published as separate books (ebook and chapbook, respectively). So if the aim of the table to list each Stephen King book, regardless of whether it was 10 or 1,000 pages, as long as it was new material, then they should be included. It can be argued that original ebooks and such should not be included. I don't know. We can have that discussion if need be. Jmj713 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Jmj713: and thanks for appreciating my work, i am/was going to remove the Stand complete edition And The Gunslinger complete edition and just make a note at the side of the original novel mentioning it was re-released as such, the same could be done for the illustrated bersion of Salem's Lot, what do you think. Kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Stand and The Gunslinger can be viewed as new works, since they're both revised from the originals. 'Salem's Lot is a bit different, it's the same novel but with lots of pages of separate deleted scenes. That one, perhaps, can be removed. Jmj713 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kind of like a remake of a film, thanks for the reply i appreciate it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

I am impressed with the turnaround I am seeing. It is rare. Most just get back to the old pattern and get indeffed. You didn't. Good. I'm happy we didn't lose you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the kind words, the reason why i have changed is because i realised what the problem was (my problem was i was a genre warrior), so by giving myself a genre editing block it has stopped the problem, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Stone Sour demos may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(*****): A cover of [[Napoleon XIV]]'s "[[They're Coming to Take Me Away Ha-Haaa!]]")

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UFC 149, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage (album)

Hello. Would you or @Dusti: like to weigh in on a discussion on genre here? It's not really an edit war or anything, but it's gone on forever and I'm just trying to figure out a way to user that you can't interpret genre from prose of a reviewer for an infobox. I believe it's against WP:OR. But they seem to think I have it in for them or something, getting information from anyone else interesting in music genre might help. If you can't, that's fine too. Thanks either way! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i have recently made the decision to completely stop getting involved in or editing genres due to my past history, so unfortunately i cant be of any help, although i am sure @Dusti: will be more than happy to give his opinion on the subject when he returns. Sorry i couldn't be more help. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't blame you. It's a pain! You are better off. ;) Happy Editing! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, I hope it gets sorted for you. :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abominations of Desolation (2nd nomination)

Greetings. I found the above page on a list of "old" discussions that have been around for over a month without a resolution. The reasons it hasn't been closed are:

The page was never listed on a daily log page for the attention of the editors who follow these sorts of discussions. It has now been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 8.
The discussion page was created without the afd2 template. Adding this template not only adds all of the relevant links that folks may need to gather information about the article (including a link to the article itself), but also makes it visible to bots that automatically perform the listing to the daily log if the nominator forgets. I have reformatted the page accordingly.

There's no harm done--it's just that the "clock" on the discussion officially starts now, and it will now be visible to a wider audience. (I'm not going to weigh in on the debate--I'll limit my involvement to housekeeping chores) If you wish to nominate other pages for deletion, please check out WP:AFDHOWTO for detailed instructions. Thank you for your contributions, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 21:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs. Team Serra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Miles. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UFC on Fuel TV, Korean Zombie vs. Poirier poster art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]