User talk:Lukabri
Welcome![edit]
|
December 2012[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ashwell House has been reverted.
Your edit here to Ashwell House was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/groups/2204874623/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Lukabri, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
|
Hi Lukabri! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Center for Investigative Reporting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to ABC, Medicare, Frontline and Mother Jones
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Alario Group, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.alariogroup.com/about-us/.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Alario Group[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Alario Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thebestofall007 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andersonhaygrain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kittitas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Morning277 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
Lukabri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello - I was surprised to see my account blocked, as I consider myself to be a legitimate wiki editor and have made many good contributions to the wiki community in my own small way. The most egregious issue I committed was a recent edit where I referenced a corporate website using their verbiage, which was deemed a copyright violation (Alario Group.) I went and created my own verbiage and mde references that the work was fully my own. In regards to my block reason, I had to read what sockpuppety and meatpuppetry even is. I can absolutely state with a clear conscience that I am not sharing my account with other people, not am I engaging in practices where I am trying to change my IP or identity. Other than using my laptop from different locations and with a different connection each time, there's nothing else I am aware of that could cause you to think I am a "sockpuppet." Please, if you can give me other reasons why my account was blocked or if there is a best practice in editing that I am not properly following, I definitely would like to know so that I can continue to make Wikipedia a strong community of good content and good edits. Thank you! Brian Lukabri (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sorry. I don't think you're being transparent in the conversation below. After poking around a bit, I'm guessing the correlation was made when you accidently pasted in your draft for the ReviverSoft article into the page for Mark Rivkin here, a few days before you used the single-purpose Thestarcrosseddrifter sock to create the article. I'm sure there's other problems, but I really don't care. Kuru (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Lukabri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I can confirm that I have never worked for this person before. Never even heard of him. But I shall definitely be on the lookout and avoid him. If you could unblock me I'd appreciate it. Thanks.Lukabri (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- This particular problematic editor has a habit of hiring other editors to continue his promotional edits. Since you left that out above, can you confirm that you've not used eLance or other work-for-hire sites to edit on his behalf? Kuru (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I can confirm that I have never worked for this person before. Never even heard of him. But I shall definitely be on the lookout and avoid him. If you could unblock me I'd appreciate it. Thanks.Lukabri (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- How in the world would you know? This is one of the pitfalls of paid editing, you have no idea if you're editing on behalf of a banned or blocked editor. I can ask if you'd like, but clearly the implication is one of the paid gigs you've taken triggered the block. Kuru (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you can tell me more information about this blocking and what may have caused it I would appreciate it. I can tell you that my recent article (andersonhaygrain) is entirely my own work from my own research, and I am very pleased with the page layout and references. I do know that I was asked to re-do a page (CSG) that had been taken down in the past, and in so doing I identified the reasons it was taken down (per wiki comments) and fixed the issues and lack of attribution - as well as added original, objective content to make the article less PR-like. If you tell me what is wrong with these edits or why I am doing something that I should not be, I would appreciate it - as I believe that my contributions to the site universe are in good faith and improve it. I often will fix pages when I land on one that asks for help with references or to fix disambiguation. So I would hope that rather than block me permanently you can tell me what it is that these bots are finding wrong with what I am doing.Lukabri (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Lukabri, you were blocked on suspicion that you did work for a PR firm in northern California which has been hiring people from Odesk and Elance to post its articles, as a way to get around a community ban, as described at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277. Wikipedia rules don't allow us to name the company or its employees. If all your contributions were your own work, then the block was unjustified. Did you post any articles on someone else's behalf?
- Request to the unblocking administrator: could Lukabri please be given a chance to respond to this comment, before you evaluate the unblocking request? —rybec 22:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Hi Rybec, this helps a lot, yes. And I believe that I can explain that copy/paste issue that Kuru speaks of as well. If you will permit me to explain, and if you would please reconsider my unblock attempt as I truly believe I am a responsible netizen of Wikipedia then I would appreciate it. First off, I learned how to code wiki pages through that firm. I know the one you speak of. I would hope that you go after that firm than to go after me now, as I am writing all of my own articles. After making edits to wiki pages and fleshing out drafts of stories with my own content, research and references, I have now begun to offer my services to write original content for pages and stubs that do not exist. I am quite proud of some of my recent work, which is a great step forward in my learning this craft. That copy paste situation likely occurred in my initial learning when I tried some of my first articles using existing articles as a reference. Unaware of how to get the full code for a page, I would copy an existing article's code, and then edit in notepad to make my changes. Then I would re-upload. I can't recall which I grabbed from, but it is likely that it was during the time that I learned how to code through that firm that you speak of. I don't suppose that there's any way for you to verify this, but I can tell you that it was late February in which I began doing my own thing and have not talked to that company. As I have continued to learn the craft, I am adding my own items. You can look at my history since February if you'd like - essentially I started in November/December 2012 and by February I knew enough to do my own articles. Can I ask that you please reconsider my block removal so that I may continue this craft and add good content? I feel like you are going after the wrong person. But yes I am familiar with that firm and have not communicated with them since February. I have also looked through my notes and can give you a complete list of ones that I practiced on for them and built out into full articles with my own added content. I don't care if you block those articles if you'd like, but everything I have been doing since has been of great value to the community. From my notes and memory, these articles I built for them: California_watch, Centrify, MarkRivkin, ReviverSoft. But even still, none of these were copy/paste jobs on their behalf, as I ended up doing a whole lot of the work myself. Can you please let me know if this is a sufficient explanation and that my work history since March is worthy of keeping online, as well as my ability to continue to write articles? Respectfully, BrianLukabri (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- CSG Systems International was a copy-paste job you performed in July of this year. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Not true on CSG. I updated the article that had been originally taken down, and I looked through the original source of the article to find what Wiki bots had said was illegal about it. I then added references (I believe that was the missing item) and added additional content and edits. This was not a copy/paste job. People contribute to wiki articles all the time to make them better, I thought?Lukabri (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Lukabri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Rybec, Kuru and Someguy. I have done a lot of reading on your talk pages about your efforts with morning277, and I have done a lot of research on the entire of "sockpuppeting" etc. I'm asking for an opportunity to make right any pages and sites I have touched since March 1 to present (the time in which I no longer had anything to do with morning277) so that I can continue the work that I have been doing since. I've written good articles on my own for AndersonHayGrain, Alario Group, Henryk Sierwski, Wish Farms, Intelliquote and yes, CSG. On CSG I *started* with what was taken down, investigated what I thought was the reason it was taken down, and added new content as well as fixes so that it would be deemed acceptable to Wikipedia. This is of course before I knew what sockpuppeting is, and if I suspected that this is they type of article I was getting involved with, I would have simply written a whole new article. You of course have no way of knowing who I am or am not working with, but I can state that as of the end of February I have been done with this identity, primarily because they were jerks, not because I even knew what "sockpuppeting" was. If it will help, I can give you some more contact details about that group if it will help your cause at all; I'm not interested in outing anyone, but I do now understand what you are trying to do, and I am interested only in continuing to contribute to the site under my existing account. Again, if I could have an opportunity to fix whatever is wrong with CSG, and if you could unblock the aforementioned sites which I can vouch for the fact that has nothing to do with Morning277, I would appreciate it.
Do you have any kind of probationary period in which you can audit my work or keep me on a "short leash?" If you look at my account you'll see that I have also fixed a couple articles and added content where I knew I could contribute (the lead singer of Concrete Blonde had a page with malformed reference code which I fixed, etc. And I was going to start to see if I could find a certain niche I could own, such as one of you has with doing pages on rivers.) OK this is the end of my request, I won't waste any more of your time. But I would greatly appreciate the chance to make my pages right. I have no intention to try to start up again with some new, secret account. But I would love the chance to continue editing and writing. Thanks, Brian Lukabri (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Lukabri, do you understand that you were blocked for editing on behalf of a banned editor? Do you understand that editing on behalf of a banned editor may result in your being blocked again, even if you didn't know he had been banned? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Lukabri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, Someguy. I did quite a bit of research into this editor, as well as the rules and eventual voting on this editor and yes I understand this. I also understand that my best practice is to continue to do what I have evolved into since this Spring and Summer, where I craft my own articles from start to finish. I also have two journalism degrees and I am mindful of making articles that are not simply PR pieces but that actually are encyclopedic. Of course, I also know that there are many entities out there that want an article, and I have as of late been trying to make it clear that we can't just put a fluff piece out there, and we've got to be very good with references, etc. (I realize I keep pointing to andersonhaygrain, but I'm quite proud of that one. Same for Wish Farms. And I do very much want to get CSG right - if you feel that this particular stub has too much of a legacy to what was original posted (perhaps from the banned editor for all we know) then I am very much willing to simply rewrite the whole thing from scratch. But lastly, I will simply be as selective as possible with what I do in the future, and I'll possibly just take a bit of a break on new articles and perhaps do a bunch of "add-on help" whenever I come across an article that has a note asking for extra references or content. There's a particular section on the Hawaiian Islands I was thinking about adding to. So yes, I understand what you and your team is trying to protect against and I want to be an advocate to that process in the future. Best, Brian Lukabri (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Lukabri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, Someguy. Would it be possible to reconsider my block request? I am familiar with extra415 on eLance, aka Morning277, I have read a whole lot about sockpuppeting and sockmasters, and I have not been involved with extra415 since March2013. I did not realize what his MO is and I am not interested in doing anything but getting my articles written since then available for subsequent edits. I also want to just make occasional edits and improvements on Wikipedia and occasionally write my own unbiased articles for companies or entities as my own work IF that is allowed. If it is not, I then just want to continue to make edits and enhancements on wiki pages. I don't think I will be very active at all, but I would love to have the option open again. Thanks, Brian Lukabri (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(Non-administrator comment) Someguy1221 has written [1] that he'd like another administrator to decide about Lukabri's request. —rybec 23:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|1=Hi Rybec, Someguy and John Reeves. I can't respond to the message on Someguy's page regarding John Reeve's post since I am blocked, but allow me to respond: I just want my name back and to be cleared of this. I am eager to please only because I don't like what I apparently got wrapped up in. I actually don't have much intention to do paid editing, I have more an intention to have an unblocked account so that I can consider my self free of Morning's crap and the association with it. Honestly I don't know if I can to do anything with my account other than to make an occasional edit to existing articles every one in a while. I think this is more about clearing my virtual name and being disassociated with that BS of Morning than anything else. You can monitor my activity and reblock me in the future if you ever wish - I actually don't know that I intend to do much other that lay low for quite some time. Thanks for your considerationLukabri (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
In the light of your belated confirmation that you edited on behalf of Morning277 until March of this year, could you please explain [2] this edit? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC) {{unblock|reason=Sure - before I knew who morning277 was or even what sockpuppeting was, I did a few articles for this outfit that ironically helped me learn the basics of creating a wiki article and doing edits on existing published articles to clean things up. I ended up moving on from him on my own for reasons completely unrelated to my later understanding of him being blacklisted from Wiki. Basically in March I realized he was a jerk as a businessperson and I didn't want to work any more for him. Later learning everything else about him this Fall (and the rules of the road) makes me glad to have moved on when I did. So that's what I mean. I've read a lot of each of your talk pages and the history on the topic and it's pretty interesting. I was not aware of how deep it went, with him and others like him. I do somewhat feel like the concept of collaborative editing and publishing should be acceptable, but that's not for me to fight Wikipedia on. If those are the rules, then ok. Please take a look at the articles that I did for Wish Farms and Anderson Hay and Grain, which is the type of work I did once I knew how to edit Wikipedia on my own as I wrote the content.Lukabri (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you still interesting in returning to Wikipedia to make useful contributions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Hi Callanecc, yes absolutely. I would hope that my future contributions get an occasional audit and you guys steer me toward best practices to get me better, but I've got the basics down. I don't know that I care to do paid editing as much as simply have an active account that I can help on things and grow stubs out. I would appreciate it if Anderson hay and grain could be restored, that is one I am quite proud of and I feel it's an objective article write-up. But yes I'd love to keep contributing however I can. Thanks, Brian Lukabri (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Someguy1221 (and other admins who have commented) are you happy with me unblocking at this stage as a second chance given the answers to the questions above? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lukabri, I'd prefer a guarantee that you won't engage in paid editing full stop, nor will you edit in an area in which you may have a conflict of interest; are you prepared to agree to that? Also you don't need to put use "{{unblock|reason=" before each answer, just put it below this. Two asterisks will indent it (like I've put below) so that the discussion is easier to follow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Callanecc. Yes, I agree to both stipulations. I will not engage in paid editing or those areas where I may have a conflict of interest. I am interested only in performing edits in areas where I can make a positive contribution. Thanks and happy new year. BrianLukabri (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Callanecc will be away for a few days, so I've posted on my talk page, asking for an administrator to look into your request. —rybec 00:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Lukabri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
See Above
Accept reason:
Well, it is the new year (here!) so let's start with an unblock and WP:AGF. Do remember you have now raised your head above the parapet - I would not be surprised if many editors will not be watching your every move for quite some time. Keep to what you have agreed, and hopefully we won't be back here again, because the second block will be a far greater block to get removed - the entire history will be dragged out. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)