User talk:Luk/Archives/2019

This Archive Page covers all the messages left on my talk page in 2019

Arvas123
Would you consider changing this block to indefinite? It appears to be a vandalism-only account and has (unconstructive) contributions before today. 72 (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was pondering it but decided to only set the block for a day since the warnings were made after they stopped. I changed my mind and set it to indef :). -- Luk  contrib 13:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick Question
Is this information real, and not copied from another website? Because if it's not, you can go to jail. Just saying. Unless it is real, then your perfectly fine. But Wikipedia is not a reliable source in the first place, so you would just be making this worse, if this is not reall information and copied from another website. Thank you, and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.227.130 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you for your question! As you said, we are not a provider of original research and information, and everything written on Wikipedia should be supported by external, reliable sources such as news articles. Of course, since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, there may be some inaccurate information added by mistake or sometimes by malicious people. Every edit can be traced back to the IP that made it and the Wikimedia Foundation that hosts Wikipedia cooperates with law enforcement when the need arise, though. I hope this helps! --  Luk  contrib 09:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * looks like vandalism -- Luk  contrib 15:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Not V
Hi Luk, this was an inappropriate edit (copyvio) but not vandalism. I have reverted your warning. Clearly, the editor needs to be watched as they don't seem to grasp even basic policies, but I have not seen a single non-GF edit in their edit history. — kashmīrī  TALK  11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine with me :). -- Luk  contrib 11:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet account
An account that you blocked not long ago, is a probable sockpuppet for, blocked two days ago. I don't know if there's any necessity to start treating this as a sockpuppet investigation, but I thought I'd at least bring it to your attention. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes most probably, let's hope they get tired before we need to ask Checkuser to block their IP... -- Luk  contrib 16:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Tim Smith (DJ)
Thanks for your intervention. But, looking ahead 48 hours, not just "trivia", I think. I wonder did you look at each of the contributions there from that IP? I'd suggest that a connection with Columbo is not exactly likely. Many thanks. 13:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! I saw that they have been editing this article for 2 days, yes. To be honest, I did not check whether the claim was true (I assumed this was probably a hoax, at best not very interesting) though.
 * Since it is my experience that blocking someone for 1-2 days often makes them drop their disruptive editing, I blocked them for "Edit warring" (they broke 3RR) for 48 hours instead of the usual "good faith" 24 hours. Obviously if the matter continues we'll have to protect the page or block for a longer period. Cheers! -- Luk  contrib 15:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Luk. Yes, I can see the good logic there. I think they started off trying to make a joke about the tedious nature of Smith's "factoids". Let's hope they lose interest. I certainly did. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As predicted, the 48 hours have now worn off, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Welp, time for some semi protection I guess. Thanks for the notice! -- Luk  contrib 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)