Jump to content

User talk:Luk/Archives/2009/09

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

This Archive Page goes from 1/9/2009 to 30/9/2009 (dd/mm/yyyy)

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

Gaël Kakuta

Just wondering if you could keep an eye, and, possibly semi protect the article. Its going to get a lot of hits over the next few weeks so there will naturally be high levels of vandalism. Thanks --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it on my watchlist and I'll keep a close eye on it. I don't think preventive semiprot is a good idea at the moment (the article is in an early stage). -- Luk talk 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!

aplu cookie
aplu cookie

Truth Lover80 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Truth Lover80 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yum, too late. guillom 11:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
NOOOOOOOOOOOES -- Luk talk 12:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete it!

I am the person described as avi singer. I had nothing to do with the article and would like nothing more than for it to be completely deleted. The page was created by some fan with too much time on their hands and I see it as an embarrassment as it is both inaccurate and detrimental to the serious efforts I have been making to publicize my art and literature. To verify that I am who I am, you may visit the following sites.

http://storywrite.com/Kay%20Novinsky http://www.booksie.com/Kay_Novinsky and http://www.facebook.com/people/Kiarash-Novinshoar/1724214263

Please have this issue resolved as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time,

-Kiarash Novinshoar (aka: Kay Novinsky) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.93.46 (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Block of 70.41.217.95

I usually don't take such drastic action, but I'm unblocking because of the BLP exception to edit warring. Protecting the page, as was requested, is the proper remedy here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. I had declined this AIV report prior to the block, also. Tan | 39 15:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem! I'll try to have a second look later (when 2 people tell me I blew it, that's probably true ;)). -- Luk talk 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mrg3105 blocking

I finally decided to see why I was blocked in the first place here [1] and saw that you were also for some reason involved.

it seems to me that Roger is simply persecuting me for my expressed distaste at Buckshot06's involvement in articles I edited, thats all. AT NO TIME DID I USE SOCKPUPPETS ACCORDING TO POLICY, and I quote

This page in a nutshell: The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block.

I also make the following points:

  • The general rule - does not mean law etched in stone.
  • A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies. - I had done none of this
  • Some uses for alternate accounts are explicitly forbidden: using them to avoid scrutiny, misleading others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another, distorting consensus or artificially stirring up controversy, or otherwise circumventing Wikipedia policies. - I also didn't do any of these things
  • Nor did I do any of the things listed under Alternative accounts in Wikipedia:sockpuppetry
  • There is a provision for Clean start under a new name - which Buckshot06, Roger Davis and Nick-D have been at pains to deny me.....why?
  • Finally, If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them, or at least disclose this information in confidence. - I am therefore not obligated to disclose that I had a previous identity, and using checkuser is actually invasion of privacy, and contravenes this very policy!--124.183.146.14 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to forget that you are under arbcom restrictions and that you used your "new" identity to escape scrutiny and evade them. In any case, your only appeal route is through arbcom (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). I can't help you further for I am absolutely not aware of the specifis of the Digwuren case. Please do not edit with this IP. -- Luk talk 06:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Leonese Language

  • Is an attack against my because I'm the only one who is arguing. The contributions that I'm making in the article are argued from trustworthy and prestigious sources (philologists and linguists). I don't know what is the problem for be unable to edit in this article.
  • Rastrojo is an administrator on the Spanish Wikipedia.
  • If you see the contributions (all the contributions are made the same day) of the user Stywerdoff you will check that his contributions are ridiculous and random. ¿Who's the sockpuppet? --Karkeixa (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eldrewitsch

Wasn't sure if you'd want an update on this case, or whether you were watching, so apologies if this message is unwanted. Just wanted to let you know that responses from all parties have arrived. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On this case (which has been moved to SPI/Auslii), the Eldrewitsch account didn't have any results - its been assumed to be unrelated, but can you confirm that? Thanks, Nathan T 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A (reasonable?) doubt

Hi there LUK, VASCO here,

Regarding this (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Pararubbas) and your checkuser inputs, i have a doubt mate - i am the one that has been consistently reporting this vandal (his 15th sock if i'm not mistaken now!!); if it is confirmed, why are there no signs (whether on his talk or user page) that the "user" has been blocked? What does it mean? Is it irrevelant to have that template there, or is the vandal still able to "contribute" until it is inserted in the fields i mentioned?

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Aw man...

lol your no fun dude. but all right ill keep that in mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthelols 21 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 September 2009

heh :) -- Luk talk 06:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Lily Allen edits

You said: "Undid revision 315807508 by Prodge this is not really relevant (and the source is a blog). If the BBC reports it, fine but untiil then"

Well, at the time I did my revision, the Daily Telegraph had already reported on the matter. The blog referenced is TechDirt, which is a highly accurate and influential blog. It was the blog that Lily Allen herself reads (and actually ripped off), so really, you couldn't get anywhere closer to the source than that blog.

By Saturday, BBC News did cover the mixtapes scandal, referring to the TechDirt blog. So myself, TechDirt, the Daily Telegraph were ahead of them, and Wikipedia could have been, but because of your edit, you put it behind.

Don't dismiss something just because the source is "a blog". Wikipedia itself has striking similarities to a blog. There's plenty of crap blogs out there littered with untruths, but there's good ones that carry exposures the mainstream media are frightened to touch.

Prodge (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 12:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

deleted "File:DodoBones ManchesterMuseum2.jpg"

Dear Luk, I see you have deleted deleted "File:DodoBones ManchesterMuseum2.jpg". I think this one might have been the right one to keep as the image on the commons is for some reason an inverse of reality. Could you undelete it? (Msrasnw (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Replied on this user's talk page - 12:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think for some reason - the first one was an exact mirror image of the second one. And the second one was right. If you look down through the other versions of the first one you can see one that is the right way round but was from a less clear angle and a funny colour.

If that is possible then if you could undelete and let me check? I have got in a mess with pictures a bit. Sorry for the inconveneice casued. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks (Msrasnw (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Paranormal Activity (film): Thank you!

I just finished placing {{3rr}} warnings on the pages of the two anons that were engaged in an edit war on the Paranormal Activity (film) article, was considering filing a report on the 3RR noticeboard, when I saw that you had semi-protected the page, and blocked both editors. Thank you! I know nothing of this film and came to it while Huggling. From what I can tell of the edits, one anon doesn’t like spoilers, despite the policy at WP:SPOILER, while the other anon wants it in. Unfortunately, the editor who added the plot details put them in the article introduction rather than creating a plot section. Thanks again! (P.S. If there’s a response, please leave it here to keep the thread together. I will have your page watchlisted for a few days. Thanks!) —  SpikeToronto  06:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Those two lit the Abuse filter like a christmas tree :/ I didn't look much further than confirming they were indeed edit warring at lightning speed. I hope they'll take a step back or further measures might need to be taken :/ -- Luk talk 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IP block

Hi, can I ask you to take a look at your block of 193.112.136.12 (talk)? User talk:Majorly#Note explains why – it's a public computer. As a temporary solution for a trusted user, I made him IPblockexempt as I didn't want to lift the block without your approval (as it was noted as a checkuser block). Regards, BencherliteTalk 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have made it anon-only for now (this is a regularly abused IP). -- Luk talk 13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not a school. It's a public library. Majorly talk 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I read the {{schoolblock}} template as being applicable to schools and libraries. Am I mistaken? -- Luk talk 15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I saw the template name and assumed it meant school. Majorly talk 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

deleted page

Hi Luk, I have just found an article you deleted. The article was on the demon Ornias with reference to Solomon, I understand it was deleted 2 years back but dont understand why? The reason given is copy-infr? Any clarification on this would be great.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.105.109 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your message. Can you please give me the URL where this article is located? I unfortunately can't find it. "copy-infr" is indeed a peculiar deletion message, and I apologize for using such a rationale. I'm guessing this means that the page was deleted because it was a copy-paste from an other website or a book. You can recreate it using your own words if you wish :). -- Luk talk 13:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ornias, perhaps? BencherliteTalk 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I promise I looked it up oO. copyvio is short for "Copyright violation". -- Luk talk 15:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luk/Archives/2009/09&oldid=1143143135"