User talk:Luk/Archives/2008/03

This Archive Page goes from 1/3/2008 to 31/3/2008 (dd/mm/yyyy)

Previous conversations prior to 1 March 2008 (UTC) are archived there.

As Requested for helping out with my monobook.js

Terra ^{What do you want?} 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 their talk page with a friendly message.

hehe thanks ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Huggle User Category

Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42

Hey there. Just this note that Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42 is out.

You can download the episode or listen to the streaming audio at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/03/03/episode-42-the-question-of-muhammad-the-wikiand-everything/, and you can hear past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/ too.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine print: You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.

Question

See this topic. Apparently the inpretation of a Checkuser report is in question and there is a series of confusing reverts on User:HamidKarzaiIsATaliban user page regarding the Checkuser sock evidence tag that you placed. Can you help me clear this up? Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind, Alison took care of it!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your user category

Hi, I nominated your Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr category for deletion, as it's my understanding that categories made specifically for one wikipedia user are not allowed. See the following link: [[1]] --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I commented there. I think it would have been easier if you had asked me beforehand what created this category. That's probably something that needs a tad of input from the other people using this template. That being said, I can't care less whether or not this category exists. If it is deleted I'll just create a subpage with the same list (for transparency). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Archived discussion at AN/I

As the discussion was inappropriately archived, I've removed the tags. It's back open again. Bellwether ^B_C 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't done that. Sometimes, you should learn to drop the stick. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to nominate you for deletion.

The "I wanna be the guy" article is justified, well referenced and well written. It's all over the internet and is a landmark game. Please concentrate on other matters. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrimmer (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I wanna be the guy is this way. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, maybe you'd want to withdraw the nom now that the sources have been added and such. User:Krator (t c) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam

You closed it without resolving:

• PekhawarKhan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

Kingturtle (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

woops thanks! For future reference, don't hesitate to block as soon as the results are in. As an habit, I block the confirmed socks when I move the cases from pending to completed (when I am sure of what I am doing), but most of the time the filler is the user most able to act, so we don't always perform the blocks (some clerks are not admins). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I don't like to do the block on the incidents that I myself am reporting. I feels like a conflict of interest.

Thanks again, Kingturtle (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Roland Nicholson

Several months ago you deleted a page called Roland Nicholson, Jr., the same editor, Sean Corrigan, recreated it again as Roland Nicholson jr, that page was deleted and now it appears that a new version exists as Roland Nicholson. The article is still as non notable as it was when you deleted it. Can you speedy delete or should I do something?Marylandstater (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, the A7 case is borderline. You can't G4 because speedy deletions are not eligible for G4. I guess the next step would be AfD. I'm not doing it myself because I don't have the time to do a little research first. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are my Hero

Thank you so much for unblocking me, you believed in me and i will one day repay your trust. friends for life.

Adrian Fletcher (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Adrian Fletcher (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance

Hello!

Even though I have read the guidelines to acceptable checkuser requests, I do have a question.

There is a user that was blocked 3 weeks ago for a period of 1 month and I strongly believe that he is using a sockpuppet to get around his block. The reason why I am reluctant to ask for a checkuser is because I started a sockpuppet case for the suspect and I'm not sure if it's considered bad practice to ask for a checkuser while the other process is still open.

Input would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Me again! As it turns out, I won't need you to answer that question. Since I left you the above message yesterday, the sockpuppet case had been handled this morning and lenghty blocks have been applied to the involved parties. Thanks anyways.

Peace! SWik78 (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Woops my apologies for not replying you earlier. Glat it got settled :). IMO, there's no conflict of interest asking for a CU after an inconclusive SSP. (inconclusive = that does not give definite results) -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No Title

Mr. Lucasbfr:

I am a teacher in the Guyana. During the spring semester teachers in several nations in this part of the world pursue a block involving American politics. Roland Nicholson has been a leading opponent of capital punishment and we use his work as part of our study. I would think we may not be the only ones doing so. It would be a good deal easier for many people if you could restore the page. What can we do to have it done? Thank you for your labours and have a good day sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyana Barrister (talk • contribs) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi There, I was wondering if you could help me out

you see there is this editor called User talk:TharkunColl who has a racist image on his user page, can you do me a favour and give him a warning about it or delete it. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fletcher (talk • contribs)

Adrian Fletcher (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_March_13#Image:TCORDER.jpg for a discussion on this image. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SHOUT357437943

Hey. You declined the softening of the IP block, and apologised for this. I have offered to create him an account. If this the right thing to do, I'm not 100% sure. I looked at your comment here - are you referring to SHOUT357437943 being a sock, or another user? Thanks, Tiddly-Tom 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied to you by email. In short: yes this is a sock. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to email: Ah! My silliness - I got confused with soft/hard block and account creation on/off. I now understand what has gone on and will leave a message for the user concerned. Probably should keep to my vandal fighting at 6:30 in the morning :P Thanks for your help. Tiddly-Tom 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If that can make you feel better, I saw your comment on his talk before your message on mine (I clicked the banner and forgot about it). Wiki reading in the morning is baaaaaad ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is he trying so hard to get unblocked? Do you have the blocked IP to hand... what did it do? The edits from his account before being blocked and the edits he has made since to his talk page makes me think he might actualy want to edit constructivly, I'd like to be able to look at it in context if possible (with the edits from the IP). Could you drop a note to his talk page - he has added another help me and asked me to speak to you :P Tiddly-Tom 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Convex Mirrors and Concave Mirrors

I think you should keep the concave mirrors and convex mirrors because then other people can learn. Jon Jacob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.61.231 (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Azeribaboon

Thank you for your message. But it seems that Azeribabbon case is completed while this new user case and the same sock under name Azad chai is not listed there. So, therefore I have listed it as a new case. How I should proceed further?--Dacy69 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 12:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, does it mean that this anon user can continue his activity and vandalising pages?--Dacy69 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the note. Perhaps I should have just deleted it instead of responding to it. Respectfully, Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Koda Software

I followed the link in google and found that the following was deleted:

16:51, 6 March 2008 Lucasbfr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Koda (software)" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: no sources to indicate this software meets the notability requirments of WP:N)

I use Koda as it is the best GUI interface for AutoIT, it is still included in the SciTE package that is created for AutoIT currently and I believe many who work in AutoIT and also want a gui front end to their work also use it.

Just thought I'd let you know.

Koda is still currently being developed:

[2]http://www.autoitscript.com/fileman/users/lookfar/formdesign.html

and is in excellent health!

Barry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.34.252 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 13:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fr4zer

Hey, looks like you added a note about protection, but never protected the page. I'll let you take a look to decide how long you wanted to protect for (it looks like you had said 3 days on the tag, but just want to check, Metros (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Stupid twinkle ^^ -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

please restore my article on "phylogenetic profiling"

Hi,

About a year ago, you deleted my article on "phylogenetic profiling." This is an important technique in comparative genomics. The article was properly referenced. I created it anonymously, but have since registered (tonight in fact - daniel_haft), and a quick Google search will find this peer-reviewed scientific article, where I am first author.

Exopolysaccharide-associated protein sorting in environmental organisms: the PEP-CTERM/EpsH system. Application of a novel phylogenetic profiling heuristic.

Here is the deletion log entry.

23:25, 9 June 2007 Lucasbfr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Phylogenetic profiling" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: nn science article with no links to it)

I would like to request that you restore the entry. The reason for its deletion (that other articles did not link to it) would have been corrected over time. For instance, the article on David Eisenberg should point to it.

The short discussion of phylogenetic profiling in Protein-protein_interaction_prediction is pretty bad - an uninformative description of a non-standard treatment.

Please let me know if you are still active in the Wikipedia world and if you can restore the article. I will take custody of it from that point forward.

Many thanks,

Daniel Haft --Daniel haft (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I have restored (per our policies on proposed deletions) it and will look further into it later. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

I advise you regarding edit warring by warned THUGCHILDz with these POV reverts against 4 different editors: 1, 2, 3 and many others of 19 March. You know this case pertinent National sport and I hope you consider this unfair situation because I was blocked and THUGCHILDz not yet: it's crazy!!!! May I edit for improve article national sport? Regards,--PIO (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked, because of threatening to sue, being disruptive etc. Don't even consider me at your level. I don't waste time canvasing against people over and over again to get them banned. Do something productive to help the project. And did you forget to mention that the 2nd one was your IP trying to escape a ban?--05:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see PIO is now indef blocked after starting edid warring AGAIN on his IP... Good riddance. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 10:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Thank you. I honestly did not know what method to use to report the user, and this seemed like the best. I appreciate your responsiveness. 5minutes (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user, no note

Hello, you blocked User:68.44.42.141 after the user had received the last warning, but didn't put a note on the talk page (User talk:68.44.42.141). I think it would be nice if you did that. Makes it kind of easier in the future to immediately see that the user had been blocked. Best regards --Catgut (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this is intentional: I used to warn every vandal that was blocked, but, when it adds up, it is very time consuming, and it is source of misunderstanding when blocks expire and IPs are shared. I always warn the users I indef block, and I blank the talk pages of IPs I block for a long time (> 6 months). I usually warn users when I block them, to be sure they get the message. But most IPs do hit and run, and I believe the error message is enough to send the word home. I know this may cause some overload when you warn, but that does not happen often. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated your reply, thx. --Catgut (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Joshdome vandalism

You might what to check edit history on Freedom Monument, a main page article today. Permanent block for vandalism seems in order. —PētersV (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I beat you ;) "23:25, 23 March 2008 Lucasbfr (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Joshdome (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)" -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Roma people

Thanks for your assistance at Talk:Roma people. Much appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A compromise solution was found: Gypsies (Roma people). Thank you for your input. Marc KJH (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't, Marc KJH. You moved it unilaterally and it's been moved back. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No Title

Not sure what your refering to. I have a user page as a work space, and the page I am working on is called Twice Exceptional. I have not asked to delete either page, please dont. Thanks, Tim Timothy H. Miller (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 00:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NeroN BG

You asked for more evidences about CheckUser of him. I provided you on his page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NeroN_BG Marc KJH (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Verjakette

Hi. I don't know who to contact with regard to this, so I decided to write to you. This CU on Verjakette probably needs to be closed: [3]. Also, the CU confirmed sock account of User:Yerkatagear needs to be blocked and tagged. I don't know who needs to perform this, so maybe you can advise. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 10:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acting promptly. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On vandalism

I'd prefer if you didn't vandalize then. Thanks. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Grammar trout?

Well, to me it sounds right. However, if does not to you, feel free to revert. –Cheers, LAX 09:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Main page image protection

Re: your query, I think you're thinking of commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page. DYK apparently changes too often so commons:User:Zzyzx11 doesn't keep its image on his protected page. It's usually the only exception... 65.213.184.1 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

hehe thanks for the tip, I admit I was too lazy to check that despite the hunch I had :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)