![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
Archives |
---|---|
2006 | |
2007 | |
2008 | |
2009 | |
2010 | |
2011 | |
2012 | |
2013 | |
2018 | |
2019 | |
2020 | |
2021 | |
Conversations are archived manually |
This Archive Page goes from 1/9/2009 to 30/9/2009 (dd/mm/yyyy)
Previous conversations prior to 1 September 2009 (UTC) are archived there.
Just wondering if you could keep an eye, and, possibly semi protect the article. Its going to get a lot of hits over the next few weeks so there will naturally be high levels of vandalism. Thanks -- Childzy ¤ Talk 13:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Truth Lover80 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 someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Truth Lover80 ( talk) 06:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am the person described as avi singer. I had nothing to do with the article and would like nothing more than for it to be completely deleted. The page was created by some fan with too much time on their hands and I see it as an embarrassment as it is both inaccurate and detrimental to the serious efforts I have been making to publicize my art and literature. To verify that I am who I am, you may visit the following sites.
http://storywrite.com/Kay%20Novinsky http://www.booksie.com/Kay_Novinsky and http://www.facebook.com/people/Kiarash-Novinshoar/1724214263
Please have this issue resolved as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time,
-Kiarash Novinshoar (aka: Kay Novinsky) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.93.46 ( talk) 07:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I usually don't take such drastic action, but I'm unblocking because of the BLP exception to edit warring. Protecting the page, as was requested, is the proper remedy here. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I finally decided to see why I was blocked in the first place here [1] and saw that you were also for some reason involved.
it seems to me that Roger is simply persecuting me for my expressed distaste at Buckshot06's involvement in articles I edited, thats all. AT NO TIME DID I USE SOCKPUPPETS ACCORDING TO POLICY, and I quote
This page in a nutshell: The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block.
I also make the following points:
Wasn't sure if you'd want an update on this case, or whether you were watching, so apologies if this message is unwanted. Just wanted to let you know that responses from all parties have arrived. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 00:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there LUK, VASCO here,
Regarding this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Pararubbas) and your checkuser inputs, i have a doubt mate - i am the one that has been consistently reporting this vandal (his 15th sock if i'm not mistaken now!!); if it is confirmed, why are there no signs (whether on his talk or user page) that the "user" has been blocked? What does it mean? Is it irrevelant to have that template there, or is the vandal still able to "contribute" until it is inserted in the fields i mentioned?
Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 19:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
lol your no fun dude. but all right ill keep that in mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthelols 21 ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 September 2009
You said: "Undid revision 315807508 by Prodge this is not really relevant (and the source is a blog). If the BBC reports it, fine but untiil then"
Well, at the time I did my revision, the Daily Telegraph had already reported on the matter. The blog referenced is TechDirt, which is a highly accurate and influential blog. It was the blog that Lily Allen herself reads (and actually ripped off), so really, you couldn't get anywhere closer to the source than that blog.
By Saturday, BBC News did cover the mixtapes scandal, referring to the TechDirt blog. So myself, TechDirt, the Daily Telegraph were ahead of them, and Wikipedia could have been, but because of your edit, you put it behind.
Don't dismiss something just because the source is "a blog". Wikipedia itself has striking similarities to a blog. There's plenty of crap blogs out there littered with untruths, but there's good ones that carry exposures the mainstream media are frightened to touch.
Prodge ( talk) 11:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Luk, I see you have deleted deleted "File:DodoBones ManchesterMuseum2.jpg". I think this one might have been the right one to keep as the image on the commons is for some reason an inverse of reality. Could you undelete it? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC))
I think for some reason - the first one was an exact mirror image of the second one. And the second one was right. If you look down through the other versions of the first one you can see one that is the right way round but was from a less clear angle and a funny colour.
If that is possible then if you could undelete and let me check? I have got in a mess with pictures a bit. Sorry for the inconveneice casued. Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 12:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC))
Thanks ( Msrasnw ( talk) 19:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC))
I just finished placing {{ 3rr}} warnings on the pages of the two anons that were engaged in an edit war on the Paranormal Activity (film) article, was considering filing a report on the 3RR noticeboard, when I saw that you had semi-protected the page, and blocked both editors. Thank you! I know nothing of this film and came to it while Huggling. From what I can tell of the edits, one anon doesn’t like spoilers, despite the policy at WP:SPOILER, while the other anon wants it in. Unfortunately, the editor who added the plot details put them in the article introduction rather than creating a plot section. Thanks again! (P.S. If there’s a response, please leave it here to keep the thread together. I will have your page watchlisted for a few days. Thanks!) — SpikeToronto 06:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can I ask you to take a look at your block of 193.112.136.12 ( talk)? User talk:Majorly#Note explains why – it's a public computer. As a temporary solution for a trusted user, I made him IPblockexempt as I didn't want to lift the block without your approval (as it was noted as a checkuser block). Regards, Bencherlite Talk 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Luk, I have just found an article you deleted. The article was on the demon Ornias with reference to Solomon, I understand it was deleted 2 years back but dont understand why? The reason given is copy-infr? Any clarification on this would be great.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.105.109 ( talk) 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)