User talk:Luk/Archives/2018/01

Previous conversations prior to 1 January 2018 (UTC) are archived there.

Quack?
Hi! You blocked earlier today for spamming. Another account was created about 20 minutes later, and continues spamming the same link, https://eclickad.com. That probably is not just co-incidence. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * indeed, this is an obvious puppet. I indefblocked them and checked for any other instances of that domain. If they try again, don't hesitate to report them on the spam wikipeoject, that should get rid of them :). -- Luk  contrib 09:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Winning
Hi Luk,

First I want to say I realise you are a volunteer, so thank you for your time and advice.

I note that the Lisa Winning page I created has been proposed for deletion because 'the subject does not seem notable by herself'. I have therefore inserted a new second paragraph which refers to Lisa Winning being conferred position number 15 in Startup Daily’s top 50 Australian female entrepreneurs.

I appreciate any further advice you are able to offer.

Best wishes for 2018, (Suz Trailblazer (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC))
 * , thank you for your message. I personally still think it reads more like a press release promoting Lisa Winning than an encyclopedia article. I know you worked on it, but my personal opinion is that she is only known for her startup, and this would be more notable than herself. That being said, this is not an area I am that knowledgeable about so I'll let other editors take it from there :). Cheers! -- Luk  contrib 10:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Page removed
Hello I'm just wondering if is there any way to have a Wiki page approved. All other players from same industry are live from years and this company is the only one rejected by Wiki... Refferences are in place, even more last time when I checked for them. This is the page deleted by you few days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Dreamstime&action=submit Please, can you tell me what can I do to have it approved? Thank you Elian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.168.91 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  on this user's talk page - 13:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC) 
 *  on this user's talk page - 13:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC) 

United Russia
RE: could you also reprimand for edit warring? He has already broken the 3RR, which seems to be an imporant matter in the WP. cheers, Generald Goldwater (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are currently edit warring with multiple people. I don't believe in blocking on sight when 3RR is broken in good faith but you are dangerously close to having the article rolled back and protected. -- Luk  contrib 13:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A comment on a block
At Special:Contributions/96.80.156.118 you beat me to the block button by one minute. Since you got there first, I will accept your decision, but I thought I'd let you know that I don't agree. An editor who has been vandalising continuously over an extended period may be deterred by a short block, but in my experience in this situation the likelihood of the block doing any good is zero. At the most, you have forced a break of a day and a few hours on an editor who has shown that he or she is happy to have a break for three weeks anyway, so they won't mind a day or so off. As likely as not, however, it won't even do that, as the block may well come in a period when the vandal wouldn't have edited anyway, so they won't even notice that there has been a block. If anything, my impression is that a block so short that the editor is unlikely to care about it is likely to be counter-productive, as it encourages them to think of a block as something not to bother about, making future blocks less likely to have any impact. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have now noticed something else in connection with that block. In the block log entry you said "To appeal or request help, please contact me..." with a link to Special:EmailUser/Luk, but an IP editor can't use Wikipedia email, and all clicking on that link will do is give them a message telling them that they can't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with you. I however think short blocks are better than longer blocks at first, since they can serve as a first real warning shot even if the user doesn't come back in the timeframe (I left a template on their talk page). That block can also be used to escalate things up the following time since the log is is displayed prominently in the block page. Users that come back from a block often get caught quite fast.
 * My experience is that longer blocks on IPs (>=1 month) often catch innocent people. I'm reluctant to use them when the block log is empty. I would however agree with you if you go for a a 1 week/2 weeks block.
 * PS: Good catch, I should change my macro when blocking an IP... -- Luk  contrib 15:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with the ideas behind what you say, but I think a few points need to be a bit nuanced. The most significant point, I think, is that how likely it is that a long IP will catch innocent people depends very much on the particular IP address. I never block any IP address, even for the shortest time, without first checking the editing history and assessing whatever editing there has been over a longer period than that for which I am thinking of blocking. On this occasion, when I was considering blocking, I checked not only the history of this IP address, but also that of the entire 96.80.156.0/24 range. (You may know perfectly well how IP ranges work, but in case you don't that means all IP addresses beginning 96.80.156.) Not only has there never been any edit from this IP address apart from those that are evidently from the vandal in question, but even in the whole 96.80.156.0/24 range there have only ever been two other edits, and the more recent one of those was over a year ago. I therefore think that the risk of collateral damage by a block on this IP address is utterly negligible, even for a block much longer than what I was considering. On the other hand, for comparison, I have just now checked the editing history of the larger range 96.80.0.0/16, and found there a very large number of edits with no connection to our vandal, including 12 edits in the period in which our vandal has edited, three of them yesterday. I would therefore not even consider a range block of even 24 hours on that range unless there were a really major problem such as serious libel. Of course in this case there is no need to even consider a range block, as only one IP address has been used by our vandal, but I am just using that to illustrate how my assessment of the risk of collateral damage depends on the circumstances, and I think "long IP blocks should be avoided as they may catch innocent users", while a good principle, is too much of a simplification if applied as a blanket rule. Just a few of my thoughts on the matter, which may or may not be of interest to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True! And I like discussing this (it's been a long time since I had to argument a block) ! It all boils down on whether you want to prevent further harm to the project (longer block) or you want to make the point across while minimizing friendly fire (or even believe troublesome users can turn into good contributors given a nudge). Both can be argued :). -- Luk  contrib 12:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly right there, and I confess that when I wrote the above I was thinking mainly about stopping the vandalism, rather than about nudging the person into becoming a constructive editor. I have many times seen vandals turn into constructive editors, which is something that unfortunately many administrators are reluctant to believe can happen. For that reason when I do give longer blocks in this kind of situation I sometimes give custom-written block notices that explicitly encourage the editor to make an unblock request, rather than just mentioning it as a possibility as the templated notices do, though I confess I often take the easier way out. Ironic though it may seem, I am actually happier dealing with someone who has been continuously vandalising over a period of weeks than someone who, as in this case, has had a couple of bursts of vandalism with a long gap in between. That is because in the first case I can give a short block in the hope it will, as you say "nudge" the editor, confident that they will notice the block, but in the second case, as I suggested above, I fear that such a short block may not be noticed at all, or if it is the editor may not care, which encourages me to use a longer block. However, it all comes down to making a guess about how someone will respond to a block without knowing the person, so whatever we do may be wrong. I still think that in this case I would probably give a longer block than you did, but I admit that, having thought further about it, I am not as certain about that as I was when I wrote my first post here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

11 years of adminship
Wishing Luk a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You've been trouted!
For you totally nonsensical deletion summary here. Enjoy! L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah I have no idea of what happened there, and I noticed it after my mindless second click! Damn these deletion shortcuts! -- Luk  contrib 19:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
 Light and Dark2000  (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello luk you commented on the notice board about dispute resolution
In good faith I did offer the user Amsgearing a chance to 3rd party his edits. I also made a compromise edit, were I deleted some inlines that were not cited, I deleted two or more lines of trivia and I preserved 11 cited inlines. I explained my edit. I was willing to go through the section with him. He then reverted and section blanked the page, as you can see by the diffs.

This is 'section blanking v preservation' And I genuinely do not believe he can be reasoned with in good faith if you section blank. Once you try to reason with one thing, he removes more cites and blanks the full section. Section blanking moves to fast and hides key bits of information that might get lost. Also I briefly explained my experience on wiki. He then falsely accused me of sock puppetry after I explained my experience on wiki. He then lied to you that I attempted to remove this statement, the diffs show I did not remove any statement... He has also lied about the citations he has removed... One example, claiming the authority Dobson was not referenced in the The Plague Dogs book when he was.

He has ignored my good faith offer to 3rd party this and went onto continue 'section blank.' A LOT of data has been removed here, almost a full section of knowledge has been removed in hours. I honestly do not know how you can reasonably sort this by a dispute resolution?

I am genuinely not in an edit war here. I do not want to waste my time edit waring. I just edit and disengage. I genuinely believe the problem here is 'section blanking.' I have attempted to resolve this going by using the wiki guidelines set here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blanking_sections_sometimes_violates_policies.

I want good faith, but how can there be good faith if someone section blanks? Easeswily (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * replied -- Luk  contrib 22:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal
Hello. Remember the 4 IPs + ranges you blocked for that vandal in Texas? Well, I found another IP that he has been abusing for the past 6 months:. The vandalism-only account also appears to be one of his older sockpuppets, due to the obsession with vandalizing Slow loris and the similarity in behavior. You might want to consider blocking the IP for an extended period of time; the user account should be indeffed due to its vandalism-only usage. The IP range quacks faintly, so I'm not sure if it's him, but the IPs in this network geolocate to the same location. Other than the IPs I mentioned here, I don't think that this vandal has access to any other unblocked IPs, as far as I'm aware.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! I blocked the user, the IPs haven't edited this topic recently so I'm not sure a block will be effective at the moment. But yeah, it quacks... -- Luk  contrib 22:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. The vandal has returned again, this time as. They returned to vandalizing one of their favorite targets. Can you please block this IP for a few months? Thanks.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * hi! The IP geolocates to Redmond, WA so I don't think this is directly related (there's 3000 page views on that article per day). Looking at the contributions on that range, there's not much traffic there so I don't think blocking will be efficient. -- Luk  contrib 07:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:46.49.81.19 made disruptive edits after your warning
Hello! On 4 August I started a section on ANI about "User:46.49.81.19's disruptive editing". You've left a warning on his talk page (thanks for that!), and today this user made 2 disruptive edits again, not responding to any of the comments on his talk page. Therefore, I request you to undertake necessary measures against him. Thanks in advance. Flexovich (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I have (hard) blocked the IP for 2 weeks, let's hope they stop. -- Luk  contrib 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Luk
Its not.about me or so wine known by me.but I am a follower of SunDeep Bhardwaj and made a genuine page and added text ..Kindly do not judge my edits otherwise..i.am.new but I researched well to make a clean Wikipedia. Kindly do not discourage me for further value addition to Wikipedia. I am going to give around half of my life since today to the project Wiki
 *  on this user's talk page - 08:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 
 *  on this user's talk page - 08:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 

advertisment
Hi Luk, the draft I treid to put online "RESTORE - Horizon 2020" is a information about a research project of the EU. There are othe procets like this at wiki. So I think this is not advertisment.

Regards, Martin
 *  on this user's talk page - 14:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 
 *  on this user's talk page - 14:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 

Amadu Sulley
I will like to draw your attention to the page Amadu Sulley which should read Amadu Sulley regarding the Ghanaian personality who was Deputy Electoral Commissioner of which I believe you deleted. I find no reason to understand this action as the article talks about person who meets Wikipedia Notability Criteria. The article was a stub and would have been expanded and thus should be protected. I count on you to kindly restore this page and to give me a feedback on this issue. Ataavi (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have restored the article since it was a proposed deletion that was not challenged at the time and you are disagreeing with the outcome. However, I think the article needs more sourcing to assert their notability beside their indictment. Pinging since they proposed the deletion. Thanks! --  Luk  contrib 12:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * now at Articles for deletion/Amadu Sulley.  DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Srkresidency
My apologies if my deletion of the user page stepped on any of your toes or caused you any inconvenience...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * nope, that was a genuine thanks ;). -- Luk  contrib 07:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool deal; thanks for being diligent and for taking care of these promotional users - and thanks for the "thanks"! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Railway vandal
Thanks for blocking the numerous 2A02:C7F:8613:3500:**** vandals for a month. There is, however, one number out of sequence who you have blocked before, but whose second block expires at 22.01 today. Would you consider extending that block to keep them all in line? - I will be keeping an eye on that IP, but their edits are often after I have logged out for the night. - Arjayay (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd prefer letting the block expire and see if they stopped, IPs may be shared and vandals often manage to get around them so the longer we block, the more probable someone else will get caught in the crossfire. If they start again, can you notify me and I think I'll protect the pages they vandalize for a longer period? -- Luk  contrib 11:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Luk - has re-started vandalism of Northern Ireland Railway articles - Arjayay (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I have blocked that IP and semi protected all the article they modified:


 * CIE 141 Class
 * Downpatrick and County Down Railway
 * Irish Traction Group
 * Luas
 * Belmond Grand Hibernian
 * NI Railways
 * CIE 071 Class/NIR Class 111
 * NIR Class 80
 * CIE 121 Class
 * NIR Class 450
 * Let's hope they get the message -- Luk  contrib 12:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeat offender
has re-introduced their copyvio promo content in Korea Engineering Plastics after their previous block expired. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * damn, thanks for letting me know :/. -- Luk  contrib 07:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit
My edit wasn't vandalism but a vital contribution to a wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobstats (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Recover image
Hi. Can you undelete or reupload, please? I would like the uncompressed original. Thank you. serioushat 23:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I checked and this is the exact same file as File:Saturnoppositions.jpg, it was already compressed here too. Sorry! -- Luk  contrib 07:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Response to disruptive editing warning from ENTH711
Hi Luk, thanks for your reminder. I find that my editing on Didi (company), Zhou Xiaochuan, Shouguang, and Longquan Monastery have been undone. I understand that my editing on Wikipedia looks like citation spamming because most of my editing is linked to caixinglobal.com. I also received a reminder from User:Citobun about my undeclared COI issue. There are several points I would like to make here:

First, about COI, I am a former Caixin employee and once worked for their newsroom. I'm quite familiar with Caixin's content and their journalistic practice. At the same time, I find that a lot of China-related Wikipedia entries are far from perfect and the information is very old. So I hope to use caixinglobal.com's news articles to update these entries. My intention is to enrich and update fact-checked content for Wikipedia entries and contribute to the community. I shouldn't have just cited caixinglobal.com as single source and that's my fault. I will diversify sources to make sure that the information I add is verified by multiple parties and thus authentic.

Second, about my former employer Caixin and caixinglobal.com. As far as I know, Caixin has been covering China news for 9 years. caixinglobal.com is a legitimate news website providing China business and financial news in English to readers in the world. It is not a spam website and its news content is trust-worthy.

Third, all my editing is based on the entry's current content and the content of the citation I added There are cases when people simply make use of [citation needed] and [dead url] to add their own links without considering whether the new citation can corroborate the content that needs citations. I think that is spamming and should be blocked no matter what. My editing is definitely not that kind. I didn't maliciously add nonsense information or meaningless citations to pollute Wikipedia.

For example, content I added on August 28, 2018 for Didi (company) talks about the ride-sharing company's recent scandal of drivers sexually assaulting female passengers even committing crimes of rape and murder. The scandal is widely reported not only by caixinglobal.com but also by many prestigious news organization in the world such as BBC, Reuters, the Atlantic. Unlike Uber, Didi's practice is not good enough to guarantee the safety of its passengers. Now there are people dead because of its negligence. However, this important information—it can be a milestone for the company and even for the whole country—hasn't been added to Didi's Wikipedia page, while the page's current content reads very much like an advertisement or promotional piece written by Didi's employee. I think that is not what Wikipedia community wants.

Another editing on Shouguang is about its recent devastating flood caused by typhoon and local government's order of discharge of water from upstream reservoirs. This news is also reported by South China Morning Post and Reuters. The flood caused great economic loss to local farmers and the price of vegetables in there spiked to crazy level since then. I think this is a must-know for readers if they search "Shouguang" in Wikipedia.

My editing in Longquan Monastery (undone now) is about the temple's abbot sexually harassing female disciples, which aroused great attention in China. Tens of millions of people discussed it on Weibo (China's twitter), while the abbot (very well recognized in China before the scandal) resigned and was put under investigation. The whole event is regarded as part of China's #MeToo movement and bears indispensable significance for Chinese society. It was also reported by The Guardian and Quartz. When checking out Longquan Monastery entry where there was not even a word about the scandal, I think I need to add it for readers to know.

I understand that my editing practice haven't strictly followed Wikipedia's protocol. Your warning is well received and I will pay close attention to my behavior in the future. If there is any chance that you may take a look at caixinglobal.com, its content will prove that it is not a spam website and there is no need to give penalty or put it into blacklist.

Thank you for your time! ENTH711 (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ENTH711 just stop. You have WP:COI. This is egregious citation spam. Please stop. Citobun (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I took that context into account when warning you, by checking every instance of links to caixinglobal.com. I agree that some are legitimate uses (and I didn't remove them). Otherwise, it would already be in the our Spam blacklist.
 * I agree that, at first glance, this website may be a legitimate source for Wikipedia. However, I'm giving you the same advice I give to people editing when they have a close relationship to a subject: avoid even the impression of having a conflict of interest. It always end badly.
 * If Caixin covers a subject well, other editors will take notice and use it as a primary source by themselves when contributing to articles.
 * Regards, -- Luk  contrib 11:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for undeletion for Ammar Campa-Najjar
Hi Luk, you blocked edits on the Ammar Campa-Najjar page and suggested a request for undeletion. (Protected "Ammar Campa-Najjar": Article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ammar Campa-Najjar (2nd nomination), please discuss at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion before reintroducing it...)

I made the request for undeletion and it was denied, with a claim that requesting deletion was not appropriate in this case, because of the outcome of two previous deletion discussions. I think that you as an administrator should now figure out a better plan that falls in line with Wikipedia policy. The situation and notability has changed since those two discussions. B P G PhD (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was indeed incorrect, articles that have been deleted after discussion must be discussed again at Deletion review. The current policy states that if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, this can be requested there. Sorry about the confusion on my part! -- Luk  contrib 17:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thomas DeVor Draft
Hello. I thought it might meet G11, because it seems like an open-and-shut case of WP:AUTOBIO. Perhaps it's the wrong Speedy Code to use. Bkissin (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * no worries! It's probably autobiographical, but it was not enough clear cut to delete on sight, in my opinion. I know abandoned drafts can be deleted after a few month using G13, I don't think it will be an issue then :). -- Luk  contrib 12:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

 * Hey, I'm 13! Happy me! -- Luk  contrib 12:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

no title
Sorry for the edit I'm new here :/ Nbafan210000000 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 *  on this user's talk page - 21:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 
 *  on this user's talk page - 21:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 

File:Darty (logo).png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Darty (logo).png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Luk  contrib 09:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OH! Thank you --  Luk  contrib 14:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Allan Boardman
Dear Luk, Mikhail Noginov contacted me today, he and Allan organized the SPIE Photonics Conference together, that Allan sadly has passed away this weekend. His family told him so and authorized him to spread the news in the Metamaterials community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.1.246 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 *  on this user's talk page - 09:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 
 *  on this user's talk page - 09:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 

Need help request from Ariel plantz (talk)
I am unsure as to how to edit the citations already made on the the ocean storage of carbon dioxide page. They seem to be errors in syntax with dates mostly. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you Ariel plantz (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Replied on this user's talk page - 23:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)