User talk:Lukejordan02/2015 Archive

September 2015

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lukejordan02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have sat out more than 6 months and am now ready to return so i can contribute usefully. Any questions ask and i shall answer, i just want to return to editing so i can contribute and be a useful editor simple as that thank you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per the general consensus below, I'm lifting this block. This is very much your last chance, Lukejordan02 - if you find yourself blocked again, don't expect to come back. Whilst I'm not explicitly re-imposing the (now expired) editing terms at the top of this page, I would strongly suggest that you voluntarily impose them on yourself for at least the next six months to help you avoid inappropriate behaviour. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have one question: how is this time different? You've had chances before and busted them all, what changed now? Max Semenik (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your comment, this time is different because unlike before i have also changed as a person in real life not just as an editor i now have a different outlook on life after a very bad time period that i dont want to go in to. So i now understand that there is no rush to edit things and that in order for the site users must work together. I have also proved that i have changed in 1 way as i have stopped sock puppeting which was very stupid of me and has proven my patience that i didnt have before. Thank you for your time. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The only way we can find out your intentions is for an admin to unblock you. Whether any admin will unblock you is another thing... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you did produce a big block log but you did wait 6 months and say you've matured.

I'd like to see a yea or nay from those involved in dealing with you in the past. So, @Bbb23, Kuru, Dusti, and Wifione:, @Qed237, Kww, PhilKnight, and 5 albert square:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: You go first. :-) As an aside, Wifione hasn't edited Wikipedia since February, and Dusti hasn't edited since August 1.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes i have matured and i am ready to edit constructively i dont blame anyone for having doubt on me after all i have had loads of chances and blew them but this time i really mean it but if u dont unblock me i cant prove it, thanks. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23. Me first? You first. :) This is a tough call. I'm leaning to "yea" because it is a pretty safe gamble: Risk of further wasted community resources would be zero because a smidgen of old behaviour would mean permablock. Reward of an ocean of constructive, trouble-free edits is quite possible. That could make up for the past and put Wikipedia in the black after some time.

I didn't notice about Wifione, but I did figure our dear Dusti is on holiday or something. To me, he is the most important voice here having the most invested. I'll email him asking him to view this page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: you're somewhat right - I just moved back to the States after a stint in our beloved northern neighbor. Luke has maintained some contact with me and we started doing some coaching on an external test wiki. I like his enthusiasm and he's certainly got the zeal - all that worries me is that he may go back to his old habits.

I'd support a conditional unblock re-instating his previous conditions. I'd also like an additional checkuser from @DeltaQuad: to check for any more sock accounts since the ones above before an unblock is done.

Luke, you do realize that you're on a very very <large>VERY</large>thin line here and there's not going to be much tolerance should you return to your previous disruptive behavior? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dusti yes i do understand that this is my very last chance and any more mistakes would result in a permanent. If you need me to further comment or have any questions - please dont hesitate to ask. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I would support an unblock providing a CheckUser shows no other accounts. However, it would be on the understanding that if Luke returned to his previous behaviour, that he would be indefinitely blocked.--5 albert square (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not been involved that much with this editor to give a veery clear yes or no, but I am leaning towards supporting an unblock. I get the feeling that he has learnt his lesson and some time has passed so I think he could get a new chance. Qed237 (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support unblock on the basis this is his last chance. PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well Luke, barring any bad CU results, it looks like an unblock is coming. I want you to imagine being 75 years old and looking back. What are you telling your grandkids? "...Way back when, I got blocked at Wikipedia, waited six months, and was given another chance. It was a real fork in the roads..."

• "...because once unblocked, I became a good editor. I learned self-control. I had matured. I applied it to everthing. I became a better person that day. Now there is a bridge named after me..."
• "...because once unblocked, I slipped back into my old ways. It became just one of so many failures in my life. Kids, you have to shape yourself when you are young. Don't do what I did. Now, before I yell at you again, go get me another bottle of that cheap vodka I like, you little jerks..."

Be the person you want to be. You can choose. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep i won't let you down i promise. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on the unblock. Happy editing. If you ever feel like you're being treated unfairly or about to get into a conflict, please write to me. I will always do my best to help. :) In fact, you have a lot of people who will rush to your defense if you are being provoked. Anna F remote (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you i really apreciate it - i will do and i wont let you down, thank you for the support it means a lot. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

UFC people images

Hi, Luke. I notice that you work on UFC articles. I had some AfD involvement with those articles way back when. I was thinking of writing to the UFC company and asking for a huge group of publicity photos for Wikipedia. Are we missing a lot of pics? What do you think? Are photos important to the articles? Do the followers care what they look like or just how they perform, etc...? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, very few of the articles have photos unfortunatley. It sounds a great idea and would give the articles the professional look many are missing. Photos that could be important are photos of the champions and the challengers of title fights which should hopefully appeal to followers and newcomers. Excuse the poor writing it's been a while :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Okay, I will write to them. Any idea of the total number of photos I should ask for? I will give them a rough number of articles and the reason why it would be good for everyone if they all had images. Then, if they are willing, I we can compile a list for them. My guess is that this plan has roughly a 15% chance of success. That is pretty good and worth the shot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, there is at least 330 articles though. I will leave it up to you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

330 needing pics or 330 all together? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

all together. 333 past events, 12 upcoming events, 30 others. So about 380 all together, a good number of which would benefit from photos. Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm so sorry. I have my head in the clouds today. I am talking about pictures of the people. How many articles about contenders or fighters or whatever you call them don't have images? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, i misunderstood. Yeah there is loads of fighter pages that don't have any photos. I have no idea how many articles there are, but there is at least 500 fighters currently signed to the UFC (List of current UFC fighters. Is is especially bad that current champions such as Daniel Cormier (light heavyweight), Robbie Lawler (welterweight), Rafael dos Anjos (lightweight), T.J. Dillashaw (bantamweight), Joanna Jędrzejczyk (women's strawweight) don't have photos at all. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. I was not clear. Here is a link to the draft. Please feel free to be as involved as you wish. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's great. Let me know if you need my help with anything, if you need a list or anything and let me know if they respond, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if anybody has input. You too are welcome to suggest modifications to the letter. Anyhow, after a while, somebody will be needed to volunteer to send the email and communicate with the UFC people. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, if you need any more help let me know or help with anything else :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your userpage

It is sort of heading into webhosting territory. We'd love to see your energy go toward the mainspace. Are you looking for some mainspace area to work in but haven't found it yet? We are all waiting for thousands of constructive edits to happen. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a list of things i've seen yeah im gonna edit im just not rushing into anything i dont want to contribute if it's not constructive you know. Just going through a real bad time at the minute so trying to keep busy. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand. No worries. Let me know if I can be of help. And I trust better times will come for you soon. Stay well. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that mean's alot :) - i deleted a load of my user page the other day but i'm not gonna add anymore just events as i see them so, hopefully thats OK? Kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Zombie discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brick House. 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) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Lukejordan02 (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic UFC 193. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! George Ho (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lukejordan02, I would just like to ask if you are going to be participating in the DRN mediation case for the UFC 193 article. Participation is voluntary, but it would be helpful to have an indication that you are either: a) not going to participate, b) reserve the right to participate, but do not currently wish to, or c) you currently wish to participate. Remember to keep the discussion focused on content, not editors, if you decide to participate. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)