User talk:Luk: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Click here to leave me a new message .
I will usually reply on your talk page if you sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end.

If you are here because you think I've made a mistake somewhere, you might be right.

If you can, please undo my action (even if it's a deletion or a block) and notify me, I'll double check later.

	Archives
2006 – 2007 – 2008 – 2009
2010 – 2011 – 2012 – 2013–2017
2018 – 2019 – 2020 – 2021

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: feel free to ask me to correct any grammatical errors that might have slipped off! -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I read when to request check user but am still confused. Is block evasion a reason to request it?--DFS454 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on this user's talk page - 16:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

In that case you may want to block the user who made this edit [1]. Best--DFS454 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on this user's talk page - 16:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

It could probably be done even more efficiently using a database dump, you should ask there :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "there". WHERE are you saying one should ask? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasifwasif was repeatedly blanking the entire page. That doesn't seem like a normal edit to me. He blanked the entire article numerous times. After looking at it further, I guess he is trying to move the article to a new location at Category:Islamic_Shrines_in_Tamil_Nadu (which he has now created). However, when I filed the report all I saw was this person repeatedly blanking the entire article(over 3 times). Also, I came upon this from looking at the recent changes and seeing a user had blanked a page. I have no personal feelings whatsoever about shrines in Tamil Nadu. I was just trying to stop vandalism. Secondly, what should be done about this new "category" he has created? It is just a duplicate of an existing article. Thanks.WackoJacko (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on his talk page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, were you saying to keep the category or the article? Secondly, I hope you see that I was not intending to get into an "edit war", and was just correcting what I saw as vandalism in the recent changes(blanking pages). However, looking at it now, I do see that Wasifwasif was trying to accomplish something by blanking the article repeatedly. Thanks.WackoJacko (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do with the category, I'll try to come back there in a couple of days to see how it goes. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the category was already deleted once, and the content moved to what is now the article/list. He was trying to move it back to the category(if I am reading the history right).WackoJacko (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deletion/merger discussion for the original category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_26#Category:Muslim_Shrines_in_Tamilnadu WackoJacko (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, deleted then. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucas,

On AIV you removed a user and said their warning was stale. Another user gave them a final warning, But the IP vandalised shortly after on the same page. Could you elaborate on your descion? DFS454 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on this user's talk page - 11:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Ah ok thanks for the explanation --DFS454 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucas,

This user has been issuing A LOT of personal attacks[2] . When I noticed I decided to warn them[3]. However, they then proceeded to call me a Troll and suggested only Admins can warn people. Further, they suggested I'm not allowed to edit certain areas of the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Is this worth bringing up at wp:ANI or is that taking it too far? Thanks --DFS454 (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a one time event, ignore it since you're not involved IMO. There's no need fueling the fire further. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive1 before you deleted it to make way for page move? When I looked at it earlier, the bot was archiving directly to that page, so that the page content when edited had something like:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for sckpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive1]]

Begin main content here............. etc....</nowiki>

I think several conversations that have been archived to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive1 before you deleted it have been deleted entirely. You may wish to check the deleted contribs..... D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the... It showed as a redirect when I checked oO... Repairing it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirect is at the top of the page above all content, it will hide the content. It happens a lot with bots who have their user talk pages redirected to their owners' page and then pile up lots of hidden AFD notices under the redirect. MBisanz ^talk 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what happened, grrrr... Anyway it's fixed now, thanks D.M.N.! -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis OK. These things happen sometimes. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part is that I did check for archival errors! I learn something new about MediaWiki every day ^^ -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thejka (talk · contribs) is Likely." I don't get this. I think this is unfair and incorrect conclusion, but one that I can't defend because this investigation is closed. How can I prove that I am not a sockpuppet? What do I need to do? I don't get this. I make one edit to the Ralph Nader page and I defend it because I made the edit, and somehow I am swept up into these Sockpuppet investigations. This is not a fair assessment. Please, is there anyway to overturn this ruling? Thejka (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been settled with Nishkid64. Please note that checkUser findings are technical, and are not always closing the investigation. You can still comment on the case if you want! Don't hesitate to poke me again if you need help! -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go the Peter Cox's official website - the name of the choir is the Prestigious Chapel Choir, hence the capital P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemmabond (talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm sorry but I don't know why you're leaving me this message. Are you confusing me with someone else? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this is part of your job but here are my facts: The user chrisboy had made some additions to the article Legitimacy_(political). He cited a statement of opinion as a fact without any sort of reference. I deleted only a part of the statement citing US as an example for a system of check and balances because i reasoned that the statement 'such as US' as an example is not a proven fact but only an opinion of some authors. There are many liberal thinkers who dispute the same and have authored many books over it. The user chrisboy continued to restore the deleted portion without offering any explanation. When pressed he simply made a oneliner saying i am being ridiculous and do not know the subject. However, he did say that US example is a well known popular fact. He never discussed the issue further and continued to restore the POV statement wihtout any further discussions.

He further complained on me to user and caused block of my ip and user account for 24 hrs alleging abuse of multiple user accounts. The fact is i only use one user account on WP which is undersigned. There may be times when i edit in good faith without logging in. How i am expected to know that editing without loggin in and also while loggin in constitutes abuse of multiple user accounts? The concerned Admin user neither explained me the concept nor accepted any of my good faith edits. I agree to knowledge of having multiple accounts and editing could constitute abuse. But to say that having one user account also could constitute abuse i am puzzled.

subsequent to blockage expiry the user chrisboy left many warnings of incivility and edit wars on my talk pages and never commented on the issues of the article. when i also placed similar warnings on his page he complained to the Admin user that i am making spurious statements on his page. I pray you to understand and follow up the facts and direct the other user to come discussion table. I do not assume badfaith as alleged by the user chrisboy nor interested in ways and means to stop edits indirectly. I genuinely want the article to improve in quality.I hope what i have put in so many words is well taken and understood by you.Brothers in Arms (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... I try to stay away from content disputes, since there are others much better at it than me. I suggest you continue to interact with Tiptoety about this matter, I'd prefer the discussion not to take place at multiple places. I will have a look there later. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you user Lucasbfr. You seemed to have succeeded in persuading user chrisieboy to relent from his stubborn stand. He atlast cited some source for his insertions in the Article.Brothers in Arms (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with this. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there LUCAS, VASCO from Portugal here,

Thank you very much for your help and interest here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Disruptive_editor.2FSockpuppet); in the second entry of the case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas#Report_date_February_9_2009.2C_14:17_.28UTC.29), you state that "...I'm unsure whether a CU is warranted or if the latest user's contributions should be examined on their own merits". It is very well put my friend, but i (sadly) assure you he will not change his ways, he has even grown more sophisticated: in the example i provided for this account, he seems to have returned more magnanimous, enough to leave external links, only removing refs.

Another thing he does is fill the articles with POV/WEASEL and not insert one single ref (which would be a contradiction since he removes all of those!) to back it up. Believe me, i do not know if you are into soccer, but i am Portuguese as i believe the vandal is and all that info he inserts in some articles is 100% lies, just to (supposedly) enhance the article's value and players' abilities.

He also operates with several anonymous IP: for instance, look what he did to my work in this article, just because (it's him, judging by the modus operandi; also, in this example and under the new account KAKD08, he continues to talk/respond to no one and write no edit summaries http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%C3%A9sar_Peixoto&diff=prev&oldid=259579729)

Conclusion: you are 100% right to wait and assume good faith, i just would not make any bets on it :(

Have a nice week, ty again,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, and pardon my ignorance: if this does not case apply for a long-range block, which does? Thanks again in advance, mate

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucas, would you mind undeleting File:Silver-Spring-monkey.jpg and File:KeithMann2.jpg? There was a note on the image pages asking that a local copy be kept if they were copied to the commons. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hope you don't mind, Lucas. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Kanonkas. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]