User talk:LuK3/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

LuK3, then please make a new table counter for senior snooker tournament wins, I do not see how a player after retiring can still add titles to their professional non-ranking wins, while those tournaments are participated by amateurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.127.90 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I do not know much about snooker. However, if you want to discuss a new table, I would suggest taking it to the talk page and request it to be created for you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I've checked the talk page for Jimmy White, everything seems to be from years ago so I figured nobody would see what I write on the talk page, so I wanted to get the attention of those who cares by editing the main page, maybe they could make sense of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.127.90 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

--2600:8805:4000:1506:29D0:F669:C312:BF11 (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)== Madonna - SEX - edit ==

I removed the Ben Shapiro bit because it was irrelevant to the paragraph about the book's impact on the LGBT community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:4000:1506:29D0:F669:C312:BF11 (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia.

that was not kind... why would you do that... you shouldnt have done that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:0:2824:BD85:285D:5D54:40BA (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Maria Nur Rowshon

Thanks for noticing the edit of 103.134.43.219. This user is adding slang words and hateful comments on Maria Nur Rowshon's page. Is there any way to stop him/her to edit this page? --Nahid Hossain (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. If they continue to vandalize the article, you can report the IP to WP:AIV so an admin can block them. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello LuK3,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Your recent contributions at User talk:86.132.105.99 appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The user is allowed to remove the warnings, see WP:BLANKING. You should not keep reverting his blanking, see WP:Don't restore removed comments. David Biddulph (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, I appreciate the warning. It was my assumption that, according to WP:3RRNO, talk page and warning blanking by a blocked IP would constitute obvious vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Moved to userpage

Thank you Path slopu! -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Sorry, somehow I accidentally undid you on this page. Ignore the change notification please. Meters (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries, appreciate the note Meters! I saw the notification and was just about to shoot you a message. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have not been on in a while, and I forgot the screen update lag issue I have. A real pain when I click on something and the action is actually for what displays there after the screen updates. Meters (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Bryan Singer

I saw that you placed a protected icon on the page but I don't see where anyone actually protected it. Is it semi-protected? Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dharmalion76, I'm looking at the logs for the page and it looks like pending changes was applied on February 24, 2019. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that expired 24 April 2019. Was it extended? Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76: From what I gather from the protection log, I believe auto-accept is still in effect for autoconfirmed so any editor below still needs their edits approved. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that for me. I'm still learning some of this stuff. :) Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, please let me know if I can help with anything else! -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for all your hardwork in reverting and reporting vandalism! – bradv🍁 03:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you bradv, I appreciate your help as well with all of my reports! -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Marc Morano wiki page

You have allowed multiple leftwing talking points, unsupported by facts to remain on the Marc Morano page; despite your claim that Wiki tries to keep information on its pages neutral. Allowing statements such as "climate denier" and "pseudoscience" in describing Mr. Morano and his positions to remain on the page clearly demonstrates Wiki's leftwing bias. You're supposed to be providing an encyclopedia-like format; not one for leftwing activists to insert their opinions as is clearly being done on the Marc Morano page. And I have no affiliation with Mr. Morano whatsoever.

As an example and from the page:

Marc Morano (born 1968)[1] is a former Republican political aide who founded and runs the website ClimateDepot.com, which presents pseudoscientific views on climate change.[2][3] ClimateDepot is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a Washington, D.C. non-profit that promotes climate change denial.[4][5]

If you truly adhered to an encyclopedia format, then all that should be allowed in that sentence is:

Marc Morano (born 1968)[1] is a former Republican political aide who founded and runs the website ClimateDepot.com.

But due to your obvious leftwing bias, you have allowed statements such as "which presents pseudoscientific views on climate change." and "non-profit that promotes climate change denial." to remain.

Those statements are opinions; they are not facts. Why not allow facts such as THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE to be posted? I'll tell you why...because Wiki is run by a bunch of leftwing lunatics who pretend to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustTheFactsAndNothingButTheFacts (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@JustTheFactsAndNothingButTheFacts: I suggest taking this issue to the article talk page and discuss your proposed changes. I also suggest maintaining civility and stop with the personal attacks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cape Town

Why was my chances reverted? All my facts are factual. My source is the City of Cape Town Management. Jehielwilliams7000 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jehielwilliams7000, I reverted your addition because you didn't have the appropriate reliable sources to attribute the information to. I suggest reading our page on inline citations to help you in adding a citation. If you need any more help please let me know! -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

An award for you!!

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		This is for your excellent performance in saving Wikipedia from the harmful threats of vandalism. I appreciate your efforts and hardwork. You are a bold defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Karl Pilkington Birthdate

Hi, why are you reverting edits providing Karl Pilkington’d birthdate? ArthurWithCommonSense (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@ArthurWithCommonSense: IMDB is not considered a reliable source, according to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. In addition it looks like you are evading a block. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Luk3: Hi, Luk. First off, I haven’t got a clue of what you’re talking about. I am not evading any blocks. Secondly, if you skip to the 1:20 mark on this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjvWVYlhH8k, you will see that Karl himself claims to share a birthdate with Bruce Springsteen (who was born on the 23 of September). Now, I’m not an expert, but I believe Karl would know when his own date of birth is. What do you think?

Welcoming new users

Hi. You are doing a great job reverting vandalism, but you sometimes miss some. Before welcoming new users, please consider taking a few moments to investigate if they are truly deserving of a welcome. 1 edit is not enough for a welcome, and vandals should be reported rather than thanking them for their edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung, hope all is well. Thank you for the note. It is a force a habit to throw a welcome up on their talk page but I will be more diligent moving forward. Thank you again! -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Denisarona (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You're quite welcome Denisarona. Sorry you got all of those notifications :). -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Luk3

Hello Luk3 sorry whats was my mistake i puted the link in External Links in World Wide Web page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.184.74.100 (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What the Health page has been vandalised and you are allowing it

Please stop undoing my constructive edits. I am trying to restore the page. It has clearly been edited as someone labelled the film as an "agenda" and is citing only criticism against the film instead of the multiple doctors who praise the film and the hundreds of scientific journals backing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJr3MUNc14Y

https://www.whatthehealthfilm.com/facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.138.108 (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your edits here and here violates Wikipedia's policy on adhering to a neutral point of view and original research. In addition, you accused me of an "anti-vegan agenda", according to your edit summary. That is why your edits were reverted and warned. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Hello, I'm CASSIOPEIA. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to UFC 243— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, looks like you warned the wrong editor. My only edit on that article was a vandalism revert. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi LuK3, I am so sorry. The message above was not for you but for other editor. Somehow, either I click the wrong line or Huggle did pick up the line I placed (it happened a number of times before). Either way, mistakes is all mine. My apologies again. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What the Health page has been vandalised and you are allowing it

I didn't accuse you of an anti-vegan agenda, obviously - I was referring to the person who made the original edits. That should be obvious. LOOK at the What the Health page, someone has made a total disgrace of it and you are allowing it by reversing my edits - if Wikipedia's rules call for neutrality, then claiming that What the Health promotes a "vegan agenda" and going on about how it has only been criticized without offer the alternative viewpoints where many physicians praised the film and responded to criticism, that to me is not neutral, that is unabashedly anti-vegan, which again you are allowing.

Please respond to this, and either restore the page to its ORIGINAL state, or I will request a 3rd party.

This is the vandalized state you are allowing:

"What the Health is a 2017 film promoting a vegan agenda.[1]

The documentary has been criticized by a number of medical doctors,[2][3] dietitians,[4][5][6] and investigative journalists[7][8] for what they describe as confusing causation with correlation, cherry picking science studies, using biased sources, distorting study findings, and using "weak-to-non-existent data"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.138.108 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

After looking through the page history, I have re-added the previous neutral lede. However, if you do re-add your own views, it will get reverted. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Vromokolarov Popov WmediaFoundation

On the case trying to find someone to deal with this guy in IRC, fyi. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Steven. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

tyler bertuzzi

i dont think i did anything wrong. please let meknow how i can beter assist you in understanding why you're making fun of me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.93.192.11 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I reverted your edits because it looks like they were tests. You can use the sandbox to test out editing functions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What is happening?

Why are you putting that whole red box into my page? I was being transparent! Can you please stop put that into my articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankerthebest (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Frankerthebest, according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, you as the creator of the two articles cannot remove the speedy deletion template. You have to include a credible claim of significance or else it will be deleted. I suggest reading Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not cool!

You reverted my changes but they were in fact constructive! Please revert your revertion as in this case it was uncontructive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoknamFong (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Richard Pan vandalization

HI - saw you reverted some recent vandalization to Richard Pan's page - I'm a newish editor and unsure how to add to the biographies of living persons noticeboard about the repeat vandalization? I appreciate your knowledge & experience!

Hello Kestrien, thank you for the note! I see you did undo that vandalism edit over at Richard Pan and warned that IP. Usually if they do continue with vandalism, I report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. WP:BLPN is more reserved for chronic and ongoing issues with BLP articles. For reporting vandals and spammers to the vandalism noticeboard, you can read Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism.

If you do want to get more into anti-vandalism work, I would highly suggest looking to tools like Twinkle or Huggle to help you with your vandalism fight. These tools can help you revert edits, warn editors, and tagging articles, among other uses. My talk page is alwaya open if you do have a question. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello LuK3,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 806 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 November 2019

Can you add pp-full? Cheers! CentralTime301 16:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your note @CentralTime301: however I would like to leave it the way it is. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done this isn't really needed, unless LuK3 wants it. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello LuK3 and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not publishing creators Patreon page

I was just editing a biography of a pro wrestler named Katarina Waters and I was told it didn't follow the guidelines. Why is this because the individual owns this particular page and is referenced via social media. Roddie83 (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Roddie83, I removed the Patreon link because we don't usually include crowdsourcing-related sites, see Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally to be avoided. In addition, the placement of external links should not be in the body of the article but in its separate section. Please let me know if you have any more questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, you include links for websites and publications that are crowd funding pages such as, on a subscription basis. Plus wikipedia itself includes crowd sources in terms of fiance's. Including an individuals Patreon pages should be related to such standards. Roddie83 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Roddie83, you can propose your changes over at WP:VPP to see what the Wikipedia community thinks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Marcus Schrenker Page

Hi LuK3. I took the time to research the Marcus Schrenker page in depth and I want to comment regarding the accuracy of the page. There are so many inaccuracies that it is tough to even know where to start. I work in the criminal justice field and have learned to never rely on the media for an accurate story. I actually went into court documents and state records and discovered that the article actually has a lot wrong. I went through the trouble of correcting the inaccuracies and you basically moved it back to the inaccurate state? Let me give you a few glaring examples. For example, the article states that Schrenker was released from Florida Federal Parole. Parole was abolished on the Federal level in the 80s. Another example is his wife, his date of birth, his children. What is he doing now? It appears this is a static article about the past and an inaccurate one at that. Another example of an inaccuracy. It states His house in Indianapolis. Or, it states his aircraft. This is not true. When I researched the home in Indianapolis he wasn't an owner. In fact, at the time he lived in Florida. If you research the title of the home you will see his name wasn't on it. The aircraft he flew was owned by Heritage Aircraft LLC of which he wasn't a shareholder. I obtained these records by examining the Delaware corporate records. My point is this: If we aren't going to tell a true and dynamic story then this page just needs to be deleted. If the people that have authored it want to use it as a mud slinging event, or a hate blog, then this isn't the place for it. It needs to be fair and objective; dynamic and truthful. Stating that he is most known for something is opinion, not fact, and doesn't adhere to the Wikipedia biography guidelines. Schrenker is actually known for doing quite a bit after his downfall which you can read about on line. Another glaring issue. James Marc Schrenker (Tennessee) is a doctor and is not Marcus Schrenker. He goes by Marc and I think the authors of the redirect got it confused. Marc Schrenker is not Marcus Schrenker. Just my observations. I'm am frustrated with this page and feel that if we can't be fair and objective then maybe just delete it. It seems an issue of contention.

Jon 00:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbrauer1968 (talk • contribs)

Hi there....

I apologize for not getting the reference. And I hope that I am leaving you a message in an appropriate way. I am experiencing a 'blacklisted' website, so I need to investigate how to reference what is actually happening in real time. Also, can I use Wikipedia as a reference? This is Jsolensky, btw

Hello Jsolensky and thank you for the note. Your link might match a link on the spam blacklist. Your edits have to include a reliable source that is independent of the subject. For example, news channel CNN publishes a store of a Change.org petition would be considered a reliable source. Let me know if you have any other questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Rabbids Invasion is a Nick Animation Studio production

The video I posted is proof to Rabbids invasion being made by Nick Animation Studio. Yet everytime I add the series to the show page it gets deleted. I'm trying to get them to understand that it factually belongs on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.8.157 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You can not just add YouTube links to an article. YouTube is generally not a reliable source, please read Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#YouTube. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, LuK3

Thank you for creating California Senate Bill 206.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for this new article. However I wonder if the article's title should be changed to "Fair Pay to Play Act" since it has now been signed into law and is no longer an obscure senate bill. This is the pattern for most articles on laws/acts/statutes in Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: of course you can move it! I saw it cited at Fair Pay to Play Act in a many news outlets so I think the move would follow WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@LuK3: - Due to an old redirect sitting in the background, I was unable to do a simple "move" of the article's title, but have made a request to the tech team. It should be complete pretty soon. Thanks again for the new article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello LuK3: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux ^(talk) 18:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you Everedux, happy holidays and Happy New Year to you as well! -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Message sent to me about my edit regarding Madhurima Tuli

Hi Luk3.

You recently sent a message to me regarding my edit on Madhurima Tuli, Im quite new to Wikipedia so this is my first edit, so I'm very sorry if this has caused any inconvenience.I just wanted to ask what do you mean by a citation to a reliable source, I am new to this so I'm not sure what this is and how you do it. I did not mean to create a problem and am very sorry if this caused problems for you or any one else on Wikipedia,  

I am very sorry for any inconvenience.

If you have questions just contact me at my talk page to give some help as you seem to have been editing for a long time now and have seen your page with many things and rewards being given to you. Again vey sorry for any problems.

Thanks S_X_O_X_O S X O X O (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello S X O X O, I appreciate the message. All information on Wikipedia should be sourced and verified. This is especially true with any information on living people. Your edit on Madhurima Tuli did not have any inline citations (citations included within the body of the article). Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and let me know if you have any other questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Luk3 Thanks very much for the help and I deeply apologize if there were any problems caused. Hopefully I will try to not to repeat the same mistake, but thanks a lot for your help..😊 S X O X O (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Last message,

Hi Some typos on my last message Supposed to say "very sorry' Could you please tell me how to delete a message on a talk page too, thanks. xxx S X O X O (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Newark water crisis

Hello, LuK3,

Thank you for creating Newark water crisis.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work! Please consider updating the page and the lead with current information on this event.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Citrivescence (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Why protecting your User page?

@LuK3: why did Airplaneman (talk · contribs) fully protected your user page with the edit summary (User request within own user space)? 107.242.125.51 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello 107.242.125.51 (talk · contribs), I have had a lot of vandalism against both my user and talk pages so I would just like nobody to edit it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edit to User talk:DESiegel

In this edit you removed content from my user talk page. I have reverted your edit. Please do not make such edits in future, as per the notice on my talk page in the "Procedure" section. I will remove any content I choose to, and will revert on sight any removals by anyone else, unless they involve properly oversighted content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies DESiegel, noted for the future. -- LuK3 (Talk) 04:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	This is for your incredible work fighting vandalism and POV-pushing edits tonight. Thank you! OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you OhKayeSierra for the barnstar! And congratulations on your new baby girl! -- LuK3 (Talk) 04:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk Page semi-protected

Per your request, due to vandalism, your user talk page has been semi-protected for a few days. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

File:GrapeFruit.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GrapeFruit.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello LuK3,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sean combs's name is officially Sean LOVE Combs. I do not kid you so please stop changing it Chad19873 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Mistake on revert

Hi LuK3,

I think you made a mistake in reverting my edit. My original edit did indeed include a link to twitter substantiating the backlash against Radio City, but was removed by a bot. I'm going to reinstate my edit, with a citation to the relevant twitter threads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.122.5 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the note. Unfortunately, Twitter is generally not used as a reliable source in articles, see WP:Twitter-EL. I would suggest looking for an article from a reputable sources, like The New York Times for example. In addition, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight in regards to your edit. I don't think it is appropriate to include an entire paragraph in the lead about this claim. Perhaps a sentence would work in Radio City Music Hall#Late 20th and early 21st centuries but not in the lead. Please let me know if you have any other questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

LuK3, just so you're aware, the user added the info back into the "History" section, with reliable sources as you suggested. I've removed the Twitter responses per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight but kept the rest of their additions. epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Epicgenius, I'll keep an eye on it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

New User

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia. I'm trying to change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamie_Dean&redirect=no so it redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dean_(disambiguation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AE3yia1AJeQ (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello AE3yia1AJeQ, I reverted back to the previous target page because that is the most plausible target page. If you would like to discuss this redirect, please head over to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Doing so requires editing en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamie_Dean&redirect=no again. Is it ok with you if I do so? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

AE3yia1AJeQ, go for it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated. Is there somewhere on wikipedia I can go for assistance? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

AE3yia1AJeQ, completely understandable. I would suggest heading to the Wikipedia:Teahouse to ask questions. There are a lot of helpful editors who are willing to help you out. You can also take a look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for a general overview of how to contribute constructively. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Rethink

Hello dear Luk3

Several sources have been added to the article. Please double check if we fail to remove or remove the article. Of course, this article is still up for progress If you do, remove the delete label.

Thank You --Hesamlv (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hesamlv. Those references you added seem to be primary sources, or material related closely to the event. There needs to be secondary, reliable sources about the subject to establish notability. If you feel you addressed the sourcing issues then you can remove the PROD tag. However, if you do remove the tag, the article can still be listed at WP:AFD in which the Wikipedia community will decide if the article should be kept or deleted. Please let me know if you have any more questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, LuK3. I'm just posting to let you know that List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 17. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Giants2008! -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 edit war

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

@Analog Horror:, please see WP:3RRNO. Obvious vandalism and BLP violations reverts would apply here. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

​ And please sign your entries. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your literal tirelessness with continuously reverting the obvious vandalism (or whatever else it was, as I only was able to view the history in hindsight). Utopes (talk / cont) 04:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Utopes for the kind words :). -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

regarding Flume (musician) edits ??

hi LuK3, i've received a message about an edit i (supposedly) have done to the "Flume (musician)" page. i regret to inform you that i had not made any edits to that page knowingly. Until i got this message i didn't even know who Flume (musician) was. so i'm not quite sure what has happened. I'll rule out some possible scenarios to narrow down the possible sources of the problem. I live alone and so only I use all of my computer equipment. I am well out of range of any errant wifi signal, being some 1.5km from the nearest neighbour. I have knowingly only made edits to 2 pages. the first of these was to a page i can't remember and it was well over a year ago. on that occasion i simply corrected some grammar. A word had been typed twice in a row in a manner that was plainly a 'typo' so i corrected that, by deleting one of the duplicated words. the word that had been typed twice in a row was 'where'. the second time was only a couple of days ago when i was looking at a wikipedia page that listed cruise ships. at the header for one of the tables the word 'ship' had been ommitted, so i put it in. again, it was a simple grammatical oversight. I do hope this helps you track down the source of the problem. I don't have a wikipedia account. i don't see that i change enough to warrant going to that length. cheers Roland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.107.185 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I wouldn't worry about the message on Flume (musician). You might of gotten a warning because your ISP assigned you another IP of someone who vandalized that page. If you don't want to receive those messages, I would highly suggest creating an account. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A message from Kaycranberry

I'm unsure what you're accusing me of as I removed a piece on Kay Ivey's page where she was called a vulgar name. I'm unsure if you think I did the name-calling or if you're upset I removed the name-calling.

"Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Kay Ivey. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)" Kaycranberry (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kaycranberry, I removed your edits because it includes no reliable sources. We as editors have to adhere to policies related to living people. That includes using reliable, secondary sources that verify the information in the article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add anything to this page. I am so confused as to what is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaycranberry (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Kaycranberry, so it looks like I unfortunately warned you by accident. It looks like I was referring to this edit. Sorry about that.  Self-trout -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

...No problem. Have a great day & thanks for all you do :)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaycranberry (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Apologies. I’m still fairly new to this and I’m trying my best to abide by the rules. I’ll look for more reliable sources and resubmit. Definitely not trying to be a problem or step on anyone’s toes.Leewills (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Leewills, appreciate the note. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Leewills (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Just one question:

When I first started making edits, one of the first things I attempted to do was change Emilia’s profile picture to something more recent, but every time I changed it, it ended up being reverted to the 2013 picture. Apparently that’s something that needs to be discussed (which is understandable), but as I’ve said before I’m still new to this and have no idea where I’d even go to begin a discussion on the topic so I’ve decided to just leave it alone. I do find it strange that that specific image hasn’t been changed to something more recent e.g. the full- bodied image from 2019 where she attends the premiere of the final season of game of thrones or even the picture featured in the filmography section where she attends the premiere of Solo. Not trying to be a bother, I just find it interesting that an old photo is still being used as her profile picture when there are newer options that better represent where she is at this stage in her career. 

Leewills (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Leewills, there currently is a discussion regarding the infobox image at Talk:Emilia Clarke#Infobox image. Right now it looks like there is an agreement to keep the current image. We have to take into account image quality. We can't have an image where the subject of the article is half cut off and blurry. Feel free to add your opinion on the talk page discussion. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emilia Clarke

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Emilia Clarke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emilia Clarke

The article Emilia Clarke you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Emilia Clarke for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Too fast for me

You beat me to the warning, and then beat me to removing same [1]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. Internet was a little slow I guess haha. Appreciate your help. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Question in regards to awards and nominations section

Would it be an issue if I were to place the awards and nominations section in-between the personal life and filmography sections? I ask this because I don’t want to waste my time doing so only for it to be reverted to the way it originally was. My reason for thinking of doing this is because I noticed that one of the biggest criticisms of my earlier edits was that I kept adding information that was already present in the article (particularly the bits that are located in the awards and nominations sections). The truth is that I did so because I hadn’t realized they were already present and that’s because when looking at Wikipedia articles I (and I assume many others) very rarely scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page. It therefore crossed my mind that If I overlooked that section there might be others who do the same and it seems to me that that shouldn’t be the case for such an important part of the article since it highlights some of Emilia's biggest achievements thus far. I’m basically just wondering if its okay for me to move that section from where its currently located at the bottom and place it a little higher on the page, below the personal life section, so that it can have more of a chance of being seen by persons visiting the article. I’m very much aware that its common for this specific section to be the last heading in many articles but, I’ve seen a number of articles where it’s been placed above the actor’s filmography. Johnny Depp’s is a good example. I also initially wondered why the full table of her awards and nominations aren’t present in the article while other actors have theirs fully on display. I figured that it was probably done to avoid clutter. Would appreciate if you could confirm whether my assumption on this is correct as its something I’ve always been curious about. Leewills (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leewills, so I think that, and this is my opinion, having the Awards section fits well after the Filmography section. It just seems logical to have awards after her works. Johnny Depp seems to be an outlier, I couldn't find any talk pages threads regarding the section placement. I would suggest opening up a thread on the talk page to see what other editors have to say. For your question about having the entire list of awards and nominations, we have a separate page for her awards and nominations because of the length. The section is a summary of the other article, highlighting her main career accolades which are located on the main awards page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I see where you’re coming from and to be honest it’s not enough of an issue for me to start an actual discussion with other editors on the topic. Kinda just wanted to explain that I kept adding those things because they’re located in an area that I think is more overlooked than people actually realise. I overlooked it after all. I do think her invite to join the academy could be mentioned somewhere else in the article though (personal life seems appropriate) since its only mentioned once, while other honours eg. the bafta are in there twice. Congrats on the GA upgrade on her page btw. I’d like to think I played a small role despite my somewhat problematic edits. Leewills (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Leewills thank you for your explanation. This is where WP:BRD comes into play. You can be bold and edit an article to improve it however if someone changes it back be prepared to discuss it with the editor and get more editors to discuss it as well. That is what Wikipedia is all about. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

IP yellow card troll

Hi Luk :) I wanted to warn you that this IP is a troll, old knowledge from the Italian wikipedia which now vandalizes the English one with lot of Yellow card. Thank you :) --Dave93b (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave93b, appreciate the heads up! I just saw the global block in the logs. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Emilia Clarke

On 17 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emilia Clarke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Emilia Clarke performed the funky chicken and robot dances at her Game of Thrones audition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emilia Clarke. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Emilia Clarke), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

MrClog (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tswelelo

Sorry! Is this a group?? Tswelelo10 (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Tswelelo10, I am not sure what you are talking about. Could you possibly be more specific? -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Luk3 what u want from me please stay away from me u don't even know me Tswelelo10 (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Tswelelo10, if you are talking about your edit at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, I removed it because it was considered off-topic. Article talk pages are used to discuss improving the article, not adding your personal analysis or opinion about it. Please let me know if you have any other questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A message from GacmFeb23rd2013

Received this from wiki: "It has been requested that certain historical revisions of this page be redacted by an administrator under criterion RD1 (Blatant copyright violations), because the page's history contains significant copyright violations of http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/stop_gambling/effective.html (Duplication Detector report · Copyvios report) that have been removed in the meantime."

I have looked at the "http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/stop_gambling/effective.html" and do not see any similarities in the wording I have on the Gamblers Anonymous wiki page.

I have never heard of "fairplay-campaign.co.uk" prior to this issue, and certainly did Not plagiarize any material from that site. I have used all Gamblers Anonymous texts and group websites to gather citations and quotes. All writing has been from my own words.

And for the record "http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/stop_gambling/effective.html" has nothing to do with Gamblers Anonymous or any of gamblers anonymous chapters. The site actually seems to be asking if GA is effective, and notes why GA is not effective.

The history of GA has also been removed and I do not understand what the history of GA has to do with "http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/stop_gambling/effective.html". The history listed other locations in the world where GA has spread to since it's inception in 1957. Not sure how that is a copyright issue with "http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/stop_gambling/effective.html".

Please reinstate the material we posted. It was not copied from anywhere. We would like to have accurate information on wiki for Gamblers Anonymous and that's all we are trying to do.

After another look at "fairplay", they are a gambling site. It states on their website, that "FairPlay Bets – Gaming is our passion", "Fairlay - Bitcoin Prediction Market and Exchange" among other gambling things they do. This is a gambling website. It has Nothing to do with Gamblers Anonymous, other than to try and disprove Gamblers Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Luk3, the long quotation is the Definition of Compulsive Gambling for GA. I cut out some of the beginning of the definition and put the last two lines in quotations. It is longer than the version I put on the wiki page. Not sure a partial definition is correct or accurate either, but it's too long otherwise.

Luke3, please replace the history portion of GA. There is no copyright issue there. They are just like to GA websites across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GacmFeb23rd2013, it is not just a copyright issue, it is also a manual of style issue. I would highly suggest reading MOS:LAYOUT and format your additions accordingly. You can create User:GacmFeb23rd2013/sandbox to format your addition before you submit them to the article as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GacmFeb23rd2013, it is not just a copyright issue, it is also a manual of style issue. Luk3, All the work I did was removed for a copyright issue with a gambling site "fairplay-campaign.co.uk". Now, it seems its a "not just a copyright issue, it is also a manual of style issue". Please put my content back and I'll style it accordingly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Luk3, Here we go with the treats. They are really not necessary. I really do appreciate your keeping wiki as it is with great content and all. But this was seriously unnecessary. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GacmFeb23rd2013, please let me know if you have any questions. I would be glad to answer them. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Luk3 I do have a question. Gamblers Anonymous South Africa's website is https://gasouthafrica.wordpress.com/ which seems to be causing some errors/violations thanks to wordpress. Is it o.k to use this link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GacmFeb23rd2013, I would suggest not using that link for a reliable source. Normally, Wordpress and related blogs are usually self-published. You might want to include that link in the "External links" section. You might want to include the official website instead which links to all of the international chapters. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GacmFeb23rd2013 (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GacmFeb23rd2013, thank you for the note. It looks like that website has copied the information from the Gamblers Anonymous article. I have reverted your edits because it does contain a lot of quotations from non-free sources. According to MOS:QUOTE, we should only use quotations sparingly. I would suggest writing new additions in your own words. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GacmFeb23rd2013, if you think your edits are ready, you can add them to the article yourself. However, I would highly suggest, again, to prep your addition in your sandbox or your else your edits will be removed again. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry!

I just wanted to say sorry to Luk3 I'm really sorry 😭😭🙏🙏 Tswelelo10 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A message from 134.228.35.199

The page about Joe Biden's alleged sexual assault should be removed, it is devoid of factual material and is entirely speculative. The quality of the page is notably low. Should be deleted until more concrete info is available. 134.228.35.199 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 134.228.35.199 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You can take up those issues on Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. In the meantime, I reverted your edit because you can not just remove the entire lead. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

cool

Okay, cool thanks i guess Robby Watty hehe (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC) --Robby Watty hehe (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A message from William Sha VK

William Sha VK (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Hello sir, how to add a new reference link in Wikipedia for more additional information. If you have any suggestion please talk to me.

William Sha VK, thank you for your note. I removed the link you posted to Adobe Creative Cloud because it does not adhere to Wikipedia's policy on external links. The link you posted is not an official link from Adobe so I removed it. I would suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:External links to see what links would be appropriate to include in a Wikipedia article. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A message from Da.simm

Da.simm (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Yeah sorry about that LuK3. I only know what to put on this stupid article and keep off people who (as to quote you) blatantly harass other people like they're abusing someone. This user has taken off anyone who tries to edit and put accurate information on for an unexplained reason. So instead of him reporting me, you need to go talk to him and ask why he thinks this is okay. You wikipedians are always talking about how you try to take care of deletionists by blocking them, so I am kinda trying to help you out here! But if for some reason this isn't enough, well then let me tell you something you guys can go do.

Go ahead, vandalize.

Da.simm, I took a look over your edits at Mason Ramsey. All of your additions are unsourced. Most information, especially information about living people, need to be sourced correctly or they will be removed. Denniss was correct in reverting your edits. Please include reliable sources in your future edits or they will be reverted again. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh. I did not know that they had to ALL be sourced. my bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da.simm (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Da.simm, please discuss the issue on Talk:Mason Ramsey. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok LuK3. I have cited my sources. Or should I say HAD. This same dude has once again taken it off calling it a Source that is not credible. Here is the link to the website I used. https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/mason-ramsey-38885.php

He called my source Not valid for bio data. And once again, based off the info from 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da.simm (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from 71.246.111.156

Hi Luk, I see that you reverted my change to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Dushinsky; the addition is based on an email sent by his management company to the tenants. So, it's not in published press, but is the official communication by his nominated representatives. Can we reinstate the change?

Thank you. 71.246.111.156 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. All information on Wikipedia articles, especially biographies of living people, have to based on reliable sources. An email from his management company would be considered a primary source which editors tend to avoid only in limited circumstances. I would wait until the story is covered in a reliable media outlet, for example The New York Times or CNN. You can take a look at WP:RSP to see a list of reliable sources that could be included in Wikipedia articles. Please let me know if you have any more questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for patiently explaining! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.106.159 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, happy to help! Please let me know if you have any other questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Derek Angol

Thanks for your message I had to undo some verified edits I made earlier as the page has been set up to be deleted despite the information being verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyahmed (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emilia Clarke

The article Emilia Clarke you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Emilia Clarke for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Did you make a mistake with the bot or is it broken?? Anyway, regardless of what the Legobot says, congrats Luk3 on getting Emilia Clarke to GA, cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't control the bot I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Thank you for your help on the Kim Jong-Un talk page. I was directed from the Tea House to go to request help and then the 3rd opinion section. Some editors were refusing to discuss or arguing ineffectively. I appreciate your help and guidance. Thank you. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wjrz nj forecast, I'm happy to be of assistance for you. Please let me know if you have any questions! -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mary Lou Bruner

Hi. I've now fully repaired the Mary Lou Bruner article with POV passages removed altogether. --Rice not spice (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Rice not spice, thank you for your message. I had to remove a whole block of text in the "Early life" section. It was entirely unsourced and not appropriate for the article (or any article for that matter). -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring and read WP:3RR. --Rice not spice (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Rice not spice, the entire addition includes no reliable sources and is in violation of WP:BLP. I removed it per WP:BLPRS. WP:3RRNO specifically states Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy is exempt from 3RR. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision Deletion request

Thanks for your identification of material needing Revision Deletion. As a minor point, and I might be all wet here, but I'd prefer to see the reversion followed by the request for Rev del, rather than the request followed by the reversion. The reason is that the revision deletion hides everything up to the the deletion, which means editors other than admins cannot see the details of your request. Frankly, I doubt that many are all that interested, so not a big deal, but if you revert first, then request Rvdel, other editors will still be able to see the details of your request. Does this make sense to you?S Philbrick(Talk) 23:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I'm assuming you are referencing Canadian National Exhibition. That was entirely my fault. I thought I reverted first then tagged it, when if fact it was the other way around. I'll be cognizant of that in the future. Thank you for the note. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

LuK3, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LuK3 reported by User:Galendalia (Result: ). Thank you. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 23:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Stricken as this was not an edit war. My apologies. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 01:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from 77.97.19.208

Dear interfering person with no name,

How can the truth not be"constructive"?

You have edited out facts that are true which is nothing more than political censorship of the the very kind that you claim to deprecate.

How is that anything other than hypocrisy?

Is Wikipedia interested in the truth, or not?

JB 77.97.19.208 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit goes against multiple core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I recommended on your talk page to bring up your issues with the article on the talk page. The article is not the place to add your opinion. Please let me know if you have any further questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the point? You don't answer my questions. You arrogantly ignore them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.19.208 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was not the "truth" or "facts". It was disruptive and was reverted. Again, take your issues with the article content on the talk page. Do not add your own commentary to articles. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not reverse edits saying that there is no explanation in the edit when an explanation is provided

Please do not reverse edits saying that there is no explanation in the edit when an explanation is provided. Like I already explained in the edit, the article on male pregnancy is about biological sex. It says so in the very first line of the article:

> Male pregnancy is the incubation of one or more embryos or fetuses by male members of some species.

Since the article is about biological sex and not about gender identity, references to pregnancy in trans men (FtM) is not relevant to the article. If anything, an article on pregnancy in trans women (MtF) would be relevant to the article, but I don't believe there is one. 78.54.78.232 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I see that there is a discussion on the talk page regarding the issue. Please do not keep removing the content. According to WP:STATUSQUO, the section should still be included in the article until consensus is reached. If you continue to remove the section, you may be reported for edit warring. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from 124.150.44.69

Sarah was my Mother in Law, and while I've never spoken about the 31 years I acted as her Personal Assistant, beginning to do so due the many fabricated writings/books/ and sources, I'm finding. You wish to know anything. I'm the main source.

124.150.44.69 (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, your edit was removed for a couple of reasons. Anything you add needs to be backed up with reliable sources that verify the information you add. In addition, your information is considered original research because it consists of first-hand accounts in which no other sources exist. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

False Edit Decline

I am incredibly curious as to why you would deny an edit made on a page about the school i am a senior at, that included accurate and complete information. Goofytown (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Goofytown, besides the edits being vandalism, none of them had reliable sources to back up your information. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Need help on Kim-Jong Un Talk page

Hi @LuK3:

Can I get your help to deal with this person who is spamming "Snowball" edits?

Please refer to here: Talk:Kim Jong-un#Can we put edit restrictions on this talk page?

They've done more spam edits since, including since having the nerve to do it on my own comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Jong-un&diff=957655002&oldid=957574556

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Jong-un&diff=957668655&oldid=957655044

Regards, Tytrox (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tytrox, thank you for the note. It looks like the IP edits has stopped. You can always report them to WP:AIV if they continue. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If they do it once more, I'll be sure to report them. -- Tytrox (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi LuK3, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from 185.139.137.29

Hi LuK3 You have just undone my edit. I accept that as if you may not be aware about arabs and jews. They are BOTH semitic people, they descend from the same ancestry. And this man, Abdur Rahma as Sudais is arab himself. So if he is antisemitic, then he is anti-arab too! I would suggest to make it Anti-jewism or rename it into something more logical. It is ridiculous when the term "anti-semitism" is used for arabs of any rank! Kind regards, Muhibbij 185.139.137.29 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. According to the Antisemitism article, The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people, e.g., including Arabs and Assyrians. That is not the case however because the word has been almost exclusively used again Jews since the mid-1800s. If you would like to discuss this issue more, feel free to open up a discussion at Talk:Abdul-Rahman Al-Sudais. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from 185.139.137.29

Thank you LuK3 for redirecting me to the same discussion which took place in 2015. I read it and it seems to me like if they didn't gave a reasonable response. It is totally unacceptable to stick to the terms which where introduced in the 1800s to base on. This man who had introduced the term was a jew born in Germany. And there were no arabs in Germany at that time, so he was fully confident in choosing words. Probably he had never met an arab in his whole life. It is wrong if used towards the arab. At that point in time, in Germany there were no semites accept the jews, and the term "antisemite" was ok. But now we know that arabs are everywhere and it would be appropriate to use the term "anti-jewism" as those whom we used to call "anti-semite" was actually against jews and not against semites as a race. This word should be thrown out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should consider only facts, which has to have logical explanation. And what is instead? It is stuck in a dictionary and not able to recognize that simple logic. This term is logically incorrect and it is put in dictionary, and there is ok for dictionary. But for Wikipedia it is not ok, it should get the most precise, the most unambiguous terms out of dictionaries. Those men in the discussion are totally correct, and after long and meaningful protest they had just repeated that this term is from dictionary... 185.139.137.29 (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If you feel the term in the article should be changed, please start a new discussion on the article talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from Toshineza

Toshineza (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Luk3,

We have noticed for a couple of month that many different people have been playing around with our page. And we've had complaints by parents about wrong information on our Wikipedia page.

As MBCI's Marketing Coordinator. I am in charge of Mennonite Berthren's Collegiate Institute's social media platform and this also includes our Wikipedia page. Any edits or changes made to our page without my approval, will be condemned. MBCI will make sure to track and block any vandal. This isn't a threat. This is a legal statement and a warning. You are hearing this from myself, an official MBCI staff member. Any wrong accusations, name twists, or fake stories about our school will be forwarded to our supervisor. Our leadership team is monitoring this page and will track down any illegal or harmful edits on our page.

Alain Tshinza, MBCI, Marketing Coordinator info@mbci.mb.ca

Toshineza, We will track you and sue you, which you posted on User talk:Ndowl99, is a direct legal threat and not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats for more information. In addition, I see that you removed information on Mennonite Brethren Collegiate Institute. According to what you said, you work for the institute, which is considered a conflict of interest. COI editing is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please read WP:COIEDIT on how to properly edit articles in which you have a conflict of interest. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from 96.255.205.227

96.255.205.227 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

All my change was changing between "a" to "an" due to grammar.

You might of caught some collateral damage, there was a lot of IP edits that were not constructive. Sorry about that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from Cawse Library - St Andrews College

Thank you LuK3, I have requested a name change. Cawse Library - St Andrews College (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Cawse Library - St Andrews College, you're welcome. I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia! -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar!!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 08:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Path slopu. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from 109.77.192.114

This message relates to this message (Controversial Halloween Costumes section on Lori Garver)

Hello,

I am writing to ask you to please reconsider your revision of an edit on the Wikipedia "Lori Garver" page. I understand that citations of Facebook pages are not seen as legitimate sources however, Wikipedia details there are exceptions here. An exception [[2]] if "The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article." As the link I included is a Facebook photo of Lori Garver uploaded onto Lori Garver's Facebook page it is, in my opinion, it fits within Wikipedia's criteria of a legitimate citation.

If you disagree could you please indicate why so I can learn for future reference. (No pun intended :) )

Kind Regards, John 109.77.192.114 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. While the use of Facebook posts are allowed in specific circumstances, the use of self-published sources should never be used to as a secondary source about living people (see WP:SPS). Your addition seems to be original thought with no reliable sources to verify the material added. I would suggest looking around at reliable sources, like national newspapers or news agencies, that are reporting on the controversy and include those articles or stories in your edit. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

For creating my account under my previous username "K Magz". Are my reverts enough for me to apply rollback rights? Let me know/notify me on my talk page only. Regards, KMagz04 (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

KMagz04, thank you for your message. I would suggest posting your request over at WP:RFP/R and have an administrator review your request. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this a spammer? No, this is a bot spammer!

Even, I telled this is terrible deleter bot. This even spamming many. Pirócai (cookie) 12:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pirócai: I think, too. GummyBearShoow (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A message from 72.39.90.121

Re: Walt Elliot change. I have no idea how to reach you. Hope this is the right way. I am Walt's daughter in law and have put the date of his death in because I was there when he died. I don't have proof of his death as we are working on the obituary today. I don't code, so I am doing my best with this wiki thing. As for his name change, I just showed the doctor his passport to prove that his birth name was Robert Walter Elliot (even though he went by Walt) so that she could fill in the death certificate. I have no idea how to prove that, because his documents are private and I'm not sharing them with wikipedia. Evelyn Elliot 72.39.90.121 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the message. All information added to Wikipedia articles need to be verified in reliable sources. A reliable source would include a story in a newspaper or an equivalent. This is especially true with information related to living (or recently deceased) people. I would suggest waiting until news of his death is covered in a news story before re-adding his death date. For the name change, again Wikipedia only report real names and name changes based on reliable sources. I would again wait until his full name is reported by reliable sources. I hope this helps. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Million Award for Emilia Clarke

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Emilia Clarke (estimated annual readership: 4,000,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition Reidgreg :) -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit at a user's talk page

Hello, I saw that you reverted this edit just now. While I can see why, don't you think that it would arguably be a useful edit to keep, given that it sort of proves the blocking admin's point? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, thank you for the message. I do not think the ad hominem attacks on Wikipedia editors really add anything to the editor's case for being unblocked. While it is their own talk pages and they can do what they want within the guidelines, personal attacks are not tolerated per WP:NPA. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A message from Matt M UCB SPH

You've undone edits that I've made, claiming that it might be difficult for me to write in a neutral or objective way about this subject. The edits I made were to include the correct logo and new location for the school, which have been in place since 2018. I also updated a link to a source for a historical fact about the year that the university was founded, by linking directly to the school's website. I am not being paid for this, I just know these things to be true.

I understand that this is your hobby, but you need to calm yourself down before you make these changes in the future. If I have any changes that might go against the rules I will run it by a more even-keeled editor before publishing. But until then, when I am in the process of making factual objective updates, please address any issues directly or leave them in place. Thanks

Matt M UCB SPH (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Matt M UCB SPH, I did not undo any edit you made on UC Berkeley School of Public Health, you can see the edit history here. I simply posted a welcome message on your talk page with some information about conflicts of interest. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry I took this sentence "Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason." to mean that you were in the process of removing it, as though "may have already been" meant "will happen and that might already be the case, depending on when I get to it". Sorry for assuming. Matt M UCB SPH (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Matt M UCB SPH No worries, please let me know if you have any further questions. You can also head to WP:TEAHOUSE to ask questions about editing on Wikipedia. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

How did you get your page fully protected?

How did you get your userpage fully protected? I would like mine to be protected too. Thanks, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Prahlad balaji, thank you for your message. I requested my userpage to be fully protected over at WP:RFPP. You might want to read WP:UPROT regarding userpage protection, you need to demonstrate you have a realistic need for full protection. Hope this helps! -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A message from Adisson rae

Adisson rae (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC) shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh