User talk:Luk/Archives/2009/06

This Archive Page goes from 1/6/2009 to 30/6/2009 (dd/mm/yyyy)

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

== Wikipedia Signpost : 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Horne image
Luk, could you restore the Barry Horne image, please? It had a "keep local" tag on it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, I parse the pages using a script prior to deleting them and I didn't know that alternate name (I knew the similar NoCommons). Sorry about that! -- Luk  talk 07:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, and many thanks for restoring. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 08:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty to undelete File:BarryHorne.gif, File:Hornebeagles.jpg, File:BarryHorne-with-Rocky1.jpg and tag them with NoCommons too, since I was at it :). -- Luk  talk 09:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That was very nice of you, thank you. I hope you'll accept this:


 * Thanks! Arguably, I deleted 2 pictures of yours by mistake already so we'll call it even :P -- Luk  talk 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for clearing my name about the sock puppet block. All I did was make a few posts in the articles defence an that lady blew up an used the chance to get me blocked. I admit it was meat puppetry but i'll solomnly swear now to try to contribute to all of Wikipedia an fight aginst Biasd deletions.Richard Lewis Gilbert III (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also know its not a vote I was placing an a opinion on why it shouldn't be deleted and Collectonian attacked me and when I posted sumthing she disagreed with she put the investigation an got me blocked for because Jakesnake13 edited my post an there was only liek 2-3 posts.Richard Lewis Gilbert III (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock. Much appreciated.

Always,

--Luckykitty89 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attyfurly (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Johann Hari page
and warning that vandal. He keeps inserting defamatory claims, almost every day... if you could keep checking him, that'd be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.145.3 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, he seems to have stopped but I will keep an eye on the article for a few days. -- Luk  talk 09:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Informations
Salut Luk ,

On aurait besoin d'un mot de ta part ici. En fait, j'ai proposé de mettre en place des oversights locaux, mais beaucoup sont réticents à l'idée de les voir désignés par le CAr (ou ArbCom). Ça serait sympa de nous dire rapidement comment se font les désignations ou élections d'oversights sur enwiki. J'ai demandé également à de:User:Carbidfischer qui est francophone et qui est administrateur sur dewiki. Merci ! Elfix (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PS : voici où j'ai posé ma question : fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/9 juin 2009.
 * Répondu là bas :) -- Luk  talk 08:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merci ! Elfix (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Trout userbox
Would you mind removing the reference to WP:DICK from the userbox? It's horrible and some people find it offensive. I wrote WP:MOBY because I dislike DICK so much... Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest I don't see why there should be a fuss about that. I do think that people acting like jerks (I mean really) need to have their self-importance levels adjusted. The template is trying to be light, do you really think some people might take umbrage when seeing this userbox on someone else's userpage? (no, I won't write that I like DICK, don't even ask!) -- Luk  talk 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not. This may be a one-man crusade. I just think that the more "DICK" gets bandied about, the more it seems to contribute to a feeling that incivility is OK. If anyone called me a "dick", I'd consider that pretty uncivil, yet among the longer-standing members here, it's a term that gets frequent outings - hence my essay. --Dweller (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think "jerkish" would do, please feel free to change the wording :) (I think the "don't be a dick" essay should remain linked. though) -- Luk  talk 09:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, forget it. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I see your point, though (but I don't think it applies much in that instance). -- Luk  talk 11:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser issues
My apologies for erroneously including two previously blocked usernames at Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me in order to proceed with the checkuser. Alansohn (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on this user's talk page - 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 

bot (Tag: repeating characters)
hi, I don't think this should trigger inside URL's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeitgeist,_the_Movie&diff=prev&oldid=296878592

84.104.135.141 (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on this user's talk page - 09:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 

Abuse fitler
Personally I consider each trigger to be a warning, and I block directly (for 3 hours) after 5 triggers (if it's separate edits). -- Luk  talk 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Please tell me you're not serious. By your logic, you would have blocked me several times over had the abuse filter been enabled back in the days when I still had the edit toolbar enabled, before I got sick of mis-clicking and not noticing that I had added broken formatting to a page. Please stop being so hostile to contributors. Gurch (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious it was after 5 triggers of an filter that warned the user, not a "Actions taken: none" filter (and I obviously also check the edits and WHOIS before blocking anyone, as always). I apologize if there was any confusion. -- Luk  talk 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of filters that warn the user where they have done nothing wrong at all. If you accidentally hit a toolbar button before saving and don't notice, you get warned. If you create an article that's shorter than a certain size, you get warned. It puzzles me how you think creating five short (but perfectly acceptable) articles warrants a block. Gurch (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I obviously confirm that the edits are vandalism first... -- Luk  talk 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But you said you block for 5 triggers of the abuse filter, not 5 edits. If you try to save an edit, and get warned, that's 1 trigger of the abuse filter, and you are logged as having triggered it. If you then decide not to save the edit, you haven't edited, but you've still triggered the abuse filter. If you save anyway, you trigger it again, so you've now triggered it twice. If I try to save something that would trigger the filter, get warned for it, and then decide not to save, I could trigger the filter 5 times without making any edits. Your statement "I block directly after 5 triggers" implies that you would block for this, even though there are no edits. Gurch (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just made a copy of your trout slapping user box.
I just made a user box that is pretty much an exact copy of yours, except I changed the word "Admin" to "User", due to a request from a user on my talk page. If you think I should remove it, or anything, just post on my talk page. :)

Ertemplin (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on this user's talk page - 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 

New item
Thanks for creating this! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

World of Warcraft
What server/guild? Under the hill (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, how do you make your talk page comment a different color each time? Under the hill (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RFAR
Please see. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

per Sockpuppet investigations/Mjgm84
I'm confused because you didn't give any explanation or comment. Can you look at the article history of Sir Robert Munro, 5th Baronet? Look at who the main editors are. Look at how on one occasion QuintusPetillius had a string of 5 edits within minutes of each other, and 1 min later these were followed several by 195.137.40.252, and these in turn were followed 2 mins later by QuintusPetillius again. Just a 'London IP'? Look at the page view history of Sir Robert Munro, 5th Baronet: 2 hits a day. The same type of thing happens on other articles, and with similar IPs, in which the only content-adding-editors are the Mjgm84/Psycotics1454 and QuintusPetillius. Mjgm84/Psycotics1454 are blocked... QuintusPetillius's first edit was 'hi i'm new'... And then the Harlaw/Dingwall thing with the single purpose IPs showing up and disappearing as soon as they came—IPs which are again similar to the Mjgm84/Psycotics1454 and QuintusPetillius combo. Battle of Dingwall only gets a couple hits a day and look who the main editors are. Just wondering what your comment on the above is.

When IPs edit obscure articles minutes apart of users it doesn't it usually link them to that user? When this happens constantly it should definitely link them. When these same obscure articles are edited only by blocked socks and the account in question doesn't it raise an eyebrow? SPA IPs don't just mysteriously swarm merge discussion of articles that get 2 hits a day. Man, i dunno how you can not see something 'funny' with the whole thing.-Celtus (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said these editors were unrelated. I said that from a technical (and not a behavioral) point of view, there were not enough similarities to say with certainty they were the same user. THe CheckUser tool can be gamed and therefore never proves innocence. It can only show guilt. -- Luk  talk 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, i think i understand. I guess one thing an admin shouldn't have is an itchy trigger finger. Thanks replying.--Celtus (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sony Pictures Classics Update
Hey Luc,

I saw today that you changed some of the work I did this afternoon - what I had implemented corresponds word for word with the Sony Pictures Classics website:

www.sonyclassics.com

With that, I need it to remain that way. I will change the formatting back, however, I will need that page to stay as is and be protected. I have been trying to find an administrator contact to help me with the protection process - could you provide me with some insights on how to do so? Let me know.

I appreciate your help.

Thanks!

Jamie

Tr1ckjamie (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on this user's talk page - 09:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 

== Wikipedia Signpost : 29 June 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)