User talk:Lumberjake

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, that was different entirely. Lumberjake (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why does anyone care? Honestly... anyone can edit... !!!!

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 cornix_talk 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dloh cierekim 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning, but not deserving of a block... Lumberjake (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lumberjake (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What did I disrupt? I wasn't the one who made a big deal about edit summaries on ANI. There's no rule saying you have to use good summaries. And besides, just today I've improved around 20 articles. Who was being disrupted again?

Decline reason:

reason You were disrupting by removing valid prods. If you don't agree with them, contest them, don't remove them with uninformative edit summaries. — Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lumberjake (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Actually, I'd feel more comfortable discussing this on IRC (irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia). If you don't have IRC installed, use IRCatWork or another client, but this isn't a good mode of conversation.

Decline reason:

Not a valid reason to unblock — Hu12 (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This unblock request 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.
Read our guide to improving articles
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. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
• do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
• do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
• do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
• do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.

Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) 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 "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Addhoc (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lumberjake (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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 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 reason:

Lar, a checkuser, has confirmed on the blocking admin's talk page that your IP matches that of a blocked editor. The block is confirmed for block evasion. — Sandstein (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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), 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)[reply]

Image:Lumberjake.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lumberjake.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]