Jump to content

User talk:Luk/Archives/2009/01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Archive Page goes from 1/1/2009 to 31/1/2009 (dd/mm/yyyy)

Previous conversations prior to 1 January 2009 (UTC) are archived there.

Roobit and his sock puppet farm

Hi, the (permabanned) main account has reappeared, 'thanks' to the fact that when I asked for protection, a sysop saw no problem there... I've added a new request to-day, but, actually, could you just revert the pages concerned and protect them indef? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, today's request for protection was rejected. And even funnier: my revert of Roobit's hate-speech about 'Ethno-Nazis' was undone by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs), who apparently wants to encourage indefinitely blocked sock puppeteers to continue soapboxing here! --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Just leave him be :). I actually agree with the absence of protection on the user talk page, there's no abuse here, blocked users can edit their own talk page to communicate with administrators as long as they don't disrupt the unblock process. If he crosses the line he'll be soon reblocked with user talk edition disabled. I prefer people arguing on their talk page than in the article space. He's harmless there. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 15:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: You should discuss this with Rjd0060, I know him and he's a sound guy :) -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 15:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Eh the problem (apart from the fact that banned users theoretically should not use talk pages) is that 1) in his last posting Roobit started again his rant about 'Ethno-Nazis' (one of the reasons he got blocked) 2) in the past he has used the pages as vehicle for posting Der Stürmer-style hate articles and IMNSHO preventive measures would be OK (since community has nothing to lose here ;-) ) 3) As I've explained in detail during the community discussion of his block, the past 'moderation' (?) i.e. inaction of the sysops only emboldened the troll. I'm pretty sure that after a few days either a new unblock request will appear, or perhaps a new Zhirinovsky-style manifesto. All in all, permabanned users - esp. in case of clear community consensus - should just be done away with for all intents and purposes so as to avoid any further disruption (which, in the present case, is sure to follow). Community will never benefit from Roobits having free webspace in wikipedia. I think this might be a good idea. Regards, --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh, here we go again: [1]. If this is not disruption, what is? Regardless of that, bonne Année!/happy new year to you! :-) --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 22:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I see Moreshi's patience was exhausted before mine :) (I didn't have much time these past few days, sorry!) -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 07:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazi crimes in Estonia

Could you please explain your speedy deletion of Nazi crimes in Estonia. You claim it to be a POV fork of something. The two candidates are the section Holocaust in Estonia 1941 - 1944 in Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany and Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia

I found a version of the article in Google cache. I can see that a small part of the article is a verbatim copy of a section in Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, written by me. This is standard editing practice on Wikipedia and does not constitute a POV fork. The new article is far more extensive, with twice the number of reliable sources. Its focus is on the events of 1941-1944 whereas the later article covers events in 1961.

I do not see WP:POVFORK included in the Criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest that you restore the article to main space, or if you are unwilling to do that restore it to my namespace. I have some new written sources available to improve on the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please start the article again, that article was created by a user using a sockpuppet. I deleted the couple of articles where he was the sole contributor. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 12:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser results

Hello! Regarding this, please check out this IP as it seems to be in the same range as the other confirmed ones and is immediately jumping into MfD and ANI threads. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, to be honest he's probably switched IP already. While I agree this is not a new user, their IP behavior here looks okay so in doubt I prefer not blocking without a CU confirming it. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 07:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ona Zee

Was there another privacy violation that I missed when I originally deleted and restored that article? Blueboy96 13:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 14:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten he was still around--maybe I should have move-protected it the first time. Blueboy96 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


Request for unprotection

This page was protected by an admin because of my "inappropriate welcoming", I dont intend to welcome any more users to wikipedia after this, but would still like to continue using Huggle to fight vandalism. Page was protected like 4 months ago. I am not sure what you meant by "this still stands, since apparently you haven't understood". I am ready to begin using the program again, if you wil unprotect the page. DougsTech (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 10:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Autoblocks

I didn't know that about the toolserver, but the point about blocking bot operators still stands. Generally, unless it is a non-legit bot, the bot op should not be blocked along with the bot. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockiptext

I noticed that you reverted here. However looking at User talk:Tony1/AdminReview#Significant problem? Incorrect admin use of autoblock for bots and this comment the problem is real and MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist does not seem to cover them. User talk:Lightmouse has some more information on this and I think that he has been autoblocked before. For now and because I don't have the knowledge to make edits to the whitelist, I have restored the edit. Just thought but wouldn't putting any bot on the whitelist that does not run on the toolserver require knowing the bots, and thus the editors, I? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied to both on MediaWiki talk:Blockiptext -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the photo of Fried green tomatoes (food). Badagnani (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Indecency.jpg

Hi, actually the Commons file is not quite identical. Normally featured pictures retain a local hosting for their featured status designation. That was lost when you deleted the local file. DurovaCharge! 00:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 07:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiLove!

DougsTech (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Chickens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot chicken, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of chickens by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks :) -- lucasbfr talk 10:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for move of a RFCU file to an actual sockpupper's name

Hello, can you move this RFCU file, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:Sea888 on sockpupper, Julius Ceasarus From Primus (talk · contribs) to the actual sockpupper's name? Because even though it was originally filed by the ssockpupper against Sea888 (talk · contribs), but the page is actually about the accuser. I'm gonna request another file on him, but I think it would offend Sea888. I think it should be at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julius Ceasarus From Primus Or may I just move the title by myself? Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 10:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the effort. I filed a request under the correct name. --Caspian blue 06:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to your question

I'm getting too many edit conflicts over there. What I would've done was withdraw the RfA. I wasn't interested in this. I don't care about adminship enough to be publicly embarrassed like this. If I had been e-mailed about this, I would've immediately withdrawn my RfA to avoid a huge drama-cyclone. Now that's it's done, withdrawing my RfA won't help any. Enigmamsg 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 10:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

sigh...I am sorry about the picture...it is a picture taken by a friend and given to me-a personal picture with a digital camera. I told this to WW2censor who has helped me format the article. How do I get a copyright for a personal picture? You can write to Dennis (dennisorear@chevron.com) and ask his permission-it is his photo and taken by his friend on his camera. Dennis is a friend of a friend and since he has such a large cyber footprint I thought he would be a good subject to start with. WOW I can't believe how involved it is to write for Wikipedia. I am impressed.

Anyway tell me what I need do for the picture or I can remove it.

Sorry for any problems. I am a retired librarian so I do understand copyrights.

Cleobatra (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Cleobatra

Ok--I tagged the work as to be put in public domain

I hope that is ok. Let me know if it's not.

Cleobatra (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Cleobatra

Thanks for blocking 193.63.160.253

Just was curious about the block time. Is there a significance to that? I've learned not to be surprised about block times when I saw an admin who blocks vandalism-only accounts for 20 years or something instead of indefinite. :) Believe me, I have no problem with the length. I just get curious about these things. You can reply here, if you wish. Enigmamsg 10:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 10:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the quick blocking of 82.109.65.226 when I requested it. Good work! Thanks again, ShornAssociates (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anytime! ;) -- lucasbfr talk 11:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Viewdeleted

Just a note that my first comment was that:

I'm fairly certain I know who the admin is, it is rather obvious if you study the history of the account. I've emailed my findings to arbcom. MBisanz talk 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When I reloaded the page, I saw Krimpet's comment linking the account names publicly, so I replied:

Ok, you saved me that email. I agree that is him. MBisanz talk 05:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My thought was that the cat was already out of the bag with her edit and therefore it wasn't a problem to confirm that was who I was thinking of. MBisanz talk 17:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know :). I didn't want to target Krimpet personally in my message, but I think emailing arbcom was the right move here. I guess the cat is indeed out of the bag :x (it's becoming a disturbing trend around here). -- lucasbfr talk 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, okey. Do feel free to yell at me anytime though. And now to fix your damn edit notice. Ambox is for ARTICLES!  :~) MBisanz talk 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I know, but tmbox is ugly :p -- lucasbfr talk 18:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Aaargh! I'd prefer keeping an ambox, if need be I'll just copy the template in my userspace but tmbox just makes my eyes bleed. Tbh I don't see the problem outside of the encyclopedia space, since it doesn't put the page into a category. -- lucasbfr talk 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Dennis O'Rear

Just delete the article. I used him because I thought 1-he would be honored to be on Wikipedia (I would) and 2- he had a what I thought was a large cyber footprint. If he is going to have a hissy fit then just delete the whole thing. Cleobatra (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Cleobatra

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bernardino Machado 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Bernardino Machado 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanfeed and proxying

Why has the proxying nonsense started again in January 2009? Wikipedia is still investigating this. Blocking anon edits from known Cleanfeed IPs may be a good idea, but could prevent many good faith edits from appearing. Unfortunately, a total block on anon edits may not be ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We have no idea why, I hope it's temporary (it looks like a legitimate screwup this time). However some Cleanfeed IPs got blocked with summaries like "Harassment", which is definitely not good PR on our side (worse than an explicative block). Blocking the IPs for a long time will prevent that kind of stuff to happen. If you look at the block message, I added a link to the secure server (which is probably not blocked, considering how crude is their blocking). Anonymous editing should work there. -- lucasbfr talk 16:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Smoky

Is it just me or is there way too much "stuff" on the Smoky Hill High School Article? It looks nice and everything and is clearlyt very informative, but is all of it needed for a high school? As a graduate of the school, I personally think it's nice and everything, but the course offerings section and the enormous devotion to the IB program make me feel like being bold and removing alot of the info on the page. You response on this would be greatly appreciated, as myself and you seem to be the only remaining people active on wiki.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I had a look and I agree this may be a bit over the top. However, I don't think trimming it would accomplish much, the article is not in bad shape per sé. -- lucasbfr talk 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

{{NowCommons}}

I have detagged File:Qcc 1927.jpg where you added the nowcommons tag because I was unable to locate it on Commons, can you please have a look? Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 10:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to go back and de-tag that one. I tried twice to move it using CommonsHelper and twice it did not take. I knew there was a reason why I tag images after a move rather than delete them directly. I will give it another try now. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 10:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hehe ok! These categories are a mess :s -- lucasbfr talk 10:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Tried a third time and still no luck. Might leave it for now. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 10:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to do it later today then :) -- lucasbfr talk 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done -- lucasbfr talk 15:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Postcards to commons

Very sorry about this, will try to do better.Mtsmallwood (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your block of TheKittehSaysYeah!

Howdy. TheKittehSaysYeah! (talk · contribs) has requested unblock several times with various nonsensical reasons. As the editor has indicated that he has been blocked previously, and since the account was vandalism only, I've extended your block to indefinite and dropped the user's ability to edit the page. There is no reason to contact me if you wish to reverse this action; I respect your previous judgment and was acting on the abuse of the unblock template. Kuru talk 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope indef is fine with me :). I often block VoA for a week since they almost never come back but indef was the right choice here. -- lucasbfr talk 09:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


No problem. :) Thanks for helping in our attempt to keep the TFA somewhat manageable. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:IDogLights.JPG

I have had this image in a tab for a few days because I didn't know what to do here. However I have a stupid question: If the image of the iDog is unfree as a derivative work, aren't other works such as say File:Coca-cola 50cl white-bg.jpg unfree too? -- lucasbfr talk 11:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free content review‎#File:IDogLights.JPG. I have opened up a discussion to discuss just that. To be honest, I am not that clued up on deriative work law, especially since I read M Godwin's comment on the Rubiks Cube image. So, better to let people discuss it I think. Woody (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Geek Show Podcast page deletion

You deleted a page several months ago called Geek Show Podcast. I then requested you move it my personal page so i could continue to work on it to meet notability requirements.

I went back in to work on it and found you had also deleted it from my personal page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Whillice/Geek_Show_Podcast

Please restore this so I can edit and post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whillice (talk • contribs) 04:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done, I usually redelete usefied articles after a month if I see they're not being worked on. Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 06:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

new entries

thanks for note. i intend to expand this and a few others v soon. eg Thomas Brand Hollis, etc. these are to help mje get started —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adgw2 (talk • contribs)

Okey :) -- lucasbfr talk 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI

In addition to {{finished}}, do you think the idea of changing the case box colour from yellow to another colour to make closed case stand out more? Please reply back in my talk page (as I don't have the habit of watchlisting other people's talk pages) OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohana, please see Nixeagle's comment on the talk page. It can be done, but not without some coding and we will need to tell Nixeagle what we end up doing so the bot does not override it. He has told me though that the bot can not change the color and we would need to do it by hand. Which kind of defeats the point. Tiptoety talk 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP you semi-protected away is back

January 2009

The vandal has returned Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

see User_talk:Lucasbfr/Archives/2008/12#Regarding_Special:Contributions.2F86.162.69.125 if you are confused Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people never learn. I've reprotected some articles... -- lucasbfr talk 09:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SSP case concerning Korlzor

Something weird happened when you imported this case. I (not RolandR) reported the case. Tennis expert (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops, I very probably screwed up when I copy pasted the names! Sorry! -- lucasbfr talk 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama FP on commons

Please create a redirect on commons for the Obama FP you deleted, so that links to that file will still work.--ragesoss (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it.--ragesoss (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Weird, the image should have been orphaned oO. Where was the red link? -- lucasbfr talk 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

The Teamwork Barnstar
Lucasbfr: I want to thank you for playing a crucial role in making Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations become something we can all be proud of, and for being a team player. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For watching out for me and reverting the vandalism.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Anytime :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SSP filed for Nangparbat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat Most of "their" articles are still semi-protected, so I filed this before they can run free Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Filed in the wrong place. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nangparbat_(2nd) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, I was unable to list it under open cases Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat‎ is the main article; Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nangparbat_(2nd) is the redirecter now. Damn this is confusing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 09:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

new ip attacking new pages


New sock ip, new pages: Special:Contributions/86.156.211.8 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Hello, I just wanted to alert you of this change that I made to an SPI case, and ask about it, as, before I made the change, the TOC on the main page was listing everything as under the Nrse case. Although, I Still do not think this was the best edit to make, as now the other sock cases, along with this one, are not listed in the TOC, so I'm sorry if I screwed things up further. This message shall be delivered to the others working on making the main SPI page work.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

New Nangparbat vandalizing grounds

Aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai attacks
Battle of Chawinda
Religious violence in India
United Nations Security Council_Resolution 47
Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving File:Fir0002 about.jpg to commons

Hi Lucasbfr,

There isn't any point in transferring this to the commons because it has no use in other languages/projects. I don't really care but it seems fairly pointless --Fir0002 07:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 07:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

???

Where is the original photo by me, why was deleted? HurricaneSpin (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 16:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Category redirects

Don't feel you need to deal with User:RussBot/category edit requests. I'm pretty sure there's a template that needs to be fixed and I will fix it once I isolate the problem. But thanks! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's a purging problem, I'm running the bot now we'll see how it goes :) -- lucasbfr talk 11:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Close the Nangparbat sock case with a big list of semiprotections?

Hello Lucasbfr. At User talk:EdJohnston#Nangparbat an editor proposed a list of articles that should be semiprotected due to Nangparbat's ongoing activities. The guy is so persistent that some action appears needed. Maybe not a gigantic rangeblock, but at least a good deal of semiprotection. You last protected some of these articles for one month. How would you feel about six months semiprotection for up to 50 articles? I'll take care of this if it is the right thing to do. Editors in the SPI appear to favor semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn, that idiot surely is persistent. I have no problems reprotecting the affected articles, but please keep the protection length to a reasonable minimum (2-3 months) don't indef please, the aim is to drive him away not to lock all possible improvements by IPs later on. -- lucasbfr talk 08:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello L. I saw a list of files to semi-protect, and I noticed you had used Twinkle to do the previous protection. So I turned it on, and tried it on Baintha Brakk. Three problems:
  1. It doesn't put the reason for protection into the protection log,
  2. It doesn't show the expiry date in the edit summary, but it puts in that funny 'subst' expression instead
  3. It adds the large padlock by default, not the small one. So far, 0 for 3. Maybe there is a way for me to do this right. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case / Roy Ward

Hi, you have helped against this Sock Puppet before:

Case: Roy Ward

I filed an additional request, warned the new suspect, but do I have to do more? Should I list the case anywhere?

Thank you for your time and help

Siru108 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost
Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Undeletion request: Nicholas Harpsfield

In making improvements to Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford), I have learned more about Nicholas Harpsfield (1519-1575). It turns out he is a very notable figure, extensively treated in scholarly literature (R.W. Chambers' essay "Life and Works of Nicholas Harpsfield," 1929, is an important contribution, citing extensive information from previous authors) and reference works (see this ref desk discussion). As I understand this part of PROD policy, a request to you is my first (and hopefully last and sufficient) step in restoring the deleted article to build on. Thank you for your help. Wareh (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 08:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! You're right, that's the minimum imaginable to go on. I'll see what I can do! Cheers, Wareh (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RfCU/SPI

(See also: User_talk:Rlevse#RfCU.)

Ok, I'm rather lost as to how the page should be "activated", among other things. Any help would be welcome.

As an aside, shouldn't a checkuser request be easier/more intuitive/require less WP:BURO? Anything to streamline the intro page to make it easier would also be most welcome. - jc37 12:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

replying here to not fragment the discussion further I agree the page might be a bit complicated. We tried to make it simpler with the wizard, but you really should comment on WT:SPI with ideas on how to make the process smoother (RFCU was even worse, IMO :)). However, a part of the RFCU bureaucracy can't be avoided (the case letters thingie). I won't fill it directly so you can relate your first hand experience, but here's how it should work:
  1. Use the second box to fill a request, use "Pastorwayne" as the case name.
  2. Under ";Suspected sockpuppets", add "EstherLois"
  3. Add some explanations under ";Evidence submitted"
  4. The case letter is probably E (block evasion)
  5. Save with no edit summary
  6. Have a nice cup of tea and relax :)
I hope this helps a bit :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It does, thank you very much : ) - jc37 10:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SPI clerk request

Hello Lucasbfr, I am interested in becoming a SPI trainee clerk, the page says to contact a current clerk about that (here I am!), although it doesn't go into detail about what happens past that. Thankyou for your time. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure :) I unfortunately don't have much time these days to help on SPI, so I'll double check with Tiptoety whether he thinks the place is overcrowded (but I don't think so). In my opinion any good willing hand is an asset :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for sockpuppet investigation

I surely hope you discussed it before doing something that radical! There's a shitload of bots and processes working with these pages!!! -- lucasbfr talk 06:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page.
That aside, I've finished with the sub pages (even found some misnamed), and I believe most of the templates. working through "whatlinkshere" atm. - jc37 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, you singlehandedly broke the whole process. I wonder where the rush was to prevent any prior discussion where any clerk would have told you you would break everything. I'm awaiting for a very quick explanation on WP:SPI and discussion about this. New editors can be clueless, but moving a FULL SUBSPACE of more than a hundred pages without any prior feedback is a stupidity so vast that I am questioning your sanity here. I'm having this reverted. -- lucasbfr talk 06:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
First, calm down. This is a wiki, and nothing's permanent.
Second, I didn't do this "thoughtlessly". I went through read the various talk pages, etc.
Third, there has been a fair enough amount of activity on the talk page after my post, and NOONE voiced any concerns.
And finally, anything "broken" can just as easily be "fixed". this is merely a textual line in a bot's code...
As for sanity, I'll leave that to others (I do edit Wikipedia, after all, and have for several years : ) - jc37 07:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Jc37, just because no one voices their opinion against what you're going to do, does not mean you have consensus to do it. It mean's there busy, so wait.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to side with Daedalus and Lucas. Sometimes, threads get accidentally ignored. No comments ≠ consensus. I'm going to have to hit you with this now...
{{trout}}
Xclamation point 07:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my words here, I admit I was a bit angry when I realized the bot was broken and new cases are lost in the wiki sub-ether. Some part of my comments were over the top.
I have nothing against renaming the page (it got coined rather quickly), but I wanted to drive the point home that actions must always be thought throughoutly, especially when using an automatic process or working on multiple pages. Silence is not a synonym of acquiescence. -- lucasbfr talk 10:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology about incivility.
As a quick response to the rest, you may wish to check out another essay: WP:SILENCE. (Which I'll freely admit up front to not entirely agreeing with. Circumstances in each situation should be taken into account. For example, category talk pages are often under-patrolled.)
Anyway, I've left a longer response at WT:SPI. - jc37 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Thanks for your help and support. I do know better now, although I can't say it was a pleasant learning experience finding out that my greatest enemy was myself. :-) Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luk/Archives/2009/01&oldid=1139556322"