"Striked" does not work on the context of his post.
Oh yes, it does. Just not in the way YOU use the language, or may have been taught to use it. That assumes your teacher knew what they were talking about and that you went to school, or were adequately home schooled.
The OED entry for strike linked to by Radagasty gives a few examples of striked. The
latest one from 1596:
1596 THOMASIUS Dict. (1606), Moretum, A kinde of pudding; also any thing that may be striked, as butter.
In the meaning:
4. To smear (soap, blood, etc.) on a surface; also to spread (a surface) with (something); to coat (a surface) over with oil, a wash, etc. Obs.
It also says the following:
weak forms 4 striked, 4-6 stryked,
I think the numbers refer to the meanings in which the forms occurred.
Striked also appears in a Dictionary of Middle English:
(c) to spread (garnish or seasoning) on prepared food; spread (a medicinal
preparation on a cloth); ben striked, of a street: be strewn (with flowers);
Anyway, striked is still correct, depending upon whose dictionary you choose.
As to the examples of preterite and past participle in the meaning to refuse to work, there are also some:
1793 G. DYER Compl. Poor People Eng. 74 The poor..seldom strike, as it is called, without good reason... The colliers had struck for more wages.
1801 Times 3 Aug., A number of Journeymen Biscuit-bakers..struck from their work for an increase of wages. 1840 Civil Engin. & Arch. Jrnl. III. 32/2 They ‘struck’, as it is termed, because their employer infringed, as they considered, upon their privileges.
Actually almost all of them in this entry illustrate the past tense/past participe use of strike, whereas I was using it in present tense.
However, it is interesting to analyse the first and third examples, where struck is followed by an explanation. I am wondering if this hints at the use of word that may not have yet been well established.