User talk:Luke-Jr

Welcome!
Hello, Luke-Jr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  20:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Yandere?
Regarding your edits to Mafia - is this a common variant? I've not encountered it before, and can't find any obvious sources that back it up, apart from one IRC channel. --McGeddon (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not too common, I suppose. There's about 4 IRC channels on FreeNode with it. --Luke-Jr (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's a "not too common" name that's only used on four IRC channels, then it isn't really appropriate to list it as an "alternate name" in the lead of the article. If only four groups of people in the world refer to something by a particular obscure name, we don't need to document that in an encyclopaedia entry. (If you want to read some relevant policy that explains why, take a look at WP:V.) Let me know if you have any questions. --McGeddon (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

October 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bitcoin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jprg1966   (talk)  21:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You should also refresh yourself on what vandalism is and is not. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  21:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about Bitcoin at my user talk
Please see Howard's response at User talk:EdJohnston. Please clarify for us what (if anything) is still in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Litecoin. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SudoGhost 21:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess Wikipedia blocks people for stating facts while ignoring the repeated vandalism he does... Although I notice I was wrong about HS creating that article initially. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia blocks editors for attacking others, for calling others "trolls" and accusing them of "repeated vandalism" when there is no evidence of such behavior. See WP:NOTVAND, if it doesn't fit a specific criteria, it isn't vandalism by Wikipedia's definition of the term. Comment on content, not on the contributor. - SudoGhost 22:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think the editor's behavior needs to be addressed, discuss it at WP:DRN if it is article specific, but resorting to name-calling isn't going to solve anything. - SudoGhost 22:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of evidence of his trolling and vandalism. Nitpicking semantics over Wikipedia definitions not consistent with the ordinary English language doesn't change his harmful actions themselves. It was already brought up on DRN, and basically went unresolved. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to be "right" and unable to edit Wikipedia because you were unable to be civil then be my guest. Otherwise, please stop with the ad hominem attacks.  It may seem like you're doing Wikipedia a favor by pointing out your opinion, but that's not the case.  It makes you look like the bad guy, and makes the person you're attacking look like the victim.  Nobody is going to see your comments and go "oh, he's a troll!  I had no idea!  I'd better completely agree with the person who called him a troll!"  instead they are going to look at your comment and think "Luke-Jr called him a troll?  Guess Luke-Jr has no valid comment and is trying to attack the editor instead, I guess the other editor is in the right here."  You can either contribute to Wikipedia by improving the content and commenting on the content and stop calling anyone you disagree with a "troll" and accusing them of "vandalism" when nothing of the sort has happened, or you can continue to attack other editors and find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia.  Either way, it's completely up to you. - SudoGhost 23:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, you may find some context helpful here: The view that Atlas is a troll is widely— if only just shy of universally— held one in Bitcoin communities he frequents. He's also been quite open about his unfortunate mental illness and the obsessive behavior it creates and the huge amounts of disruption, sockpuppetry, etc. elsewhere are well established. Someone from the Bitcoin community calling Atlas a troll is pretty similar to someone from the Wikipedia community calling Andrew Morrow a troll, or someone from the Linux community calling Jeff Merkey a troll— it's intented as a simple statement of fact and not as a personal attack in any case. It may be acceptable to make the decision to ignore an editors unlawful, unethical, and abusive behavior external to Wikipedia as a matter of policy but the people they've harmed don't suddenly stop being people, and don't suddenly have a surplus of tolerance for someone they know beyond all doubt is unable to work with anyone in an honest and professional manner. As it stands Atlas is basically excerting complete control of the Bitcoin article with agressive and frequent edits imposing his fringe politics and incorrect technical understanding and driving other thoughtful people away from editing it and the article is suffering for it, and I say this as a well established authority on the subject. So please cut Luke a little slack— he's at least trying to do something about it, which is more than I can say about myself as I won't even bother to try editing against Atlas... I'll come help out with the article again after he inevitably gets himself banned. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that someone may be considered a troll on a forum unrelated to Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean an editor can make personal attacks on Wikipedia. If the editor is truly a troll, they will get themselves blocked all on their own, but ad hominem attacks towards that editor doesn't do a bit of good.  "Troll" is a subjective, opinionated, negative label that doesn't serve any useful purpose in this situation. - SudoGhost 00:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that as I said, if the editor truly is a troll, they will get themselves blocked all on their own, and that's exactly what happened. - SudoGhost 02:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bitcoin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tips (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Litecoin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Per se (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Your recent editing history at Litecoin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SudoGhost 01:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: New helper policy
Hello member of ! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from. Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page. This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of —

JavaScript RegExp problem
I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)