User talk:Luna Santin/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Thanks

Just a thanks for keeping my Talk page reasonably safe. Seems I've made myself some friends. Maybe I'll have to get my talk page semi-protected too - oh well. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 09:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

dynamic ips are back

The articles you protected temporarily on 9 Jan 2008 [1][2][3][4]due to vandalisms from dynamic ips from the same domain are being attacked again.[5][6]Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have switched ips again [7]Ghanadar galpa (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the WP:AIV report [8], I blocked the latest IP for 31 hours. Based on that evidence I would also endorse protection of the pages in question. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Gave a few pages semi-protection; as Indophobia is now being edit warred over by experienced users, I've given it a shorter full protection. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Related by autoblock?

Hi, at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SaxonUnit you mentioned that SaxonUnit, ClaxsonUnit, and ShadowpuppetKing all seem to be related by autoblock. I'm having a bit of trouble tracing that particular lead myself; could you point me at the right log entries? (Fire me an email if you don't want to hand out details of your investigation.) Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Emailed away. Nothing too outlandish. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's perfect; I should have looked there myself. For some reason the toolserver's autoblock search wasn't working for me. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RFCU channel

Hi Luna. Would you be able to give me access to the #wikipedia-checkuser-clerks channel on freenode? No problem at all if you can't. Cheers, Spebi 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much a dead channel, to be honest. As far as access, I can give you individual invites, but for enduring access you'll need to get in touch with Lar, Deskana, Mackensen, Dmcdevit, or Jpgordon. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Thefiercedeity

He's back; first edit: [9]. --Jack Merridew 12:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And he's blocked indefinitely. --Jack Merridew 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

This is letting you know that I have replied to both you and Sandstein about the block on both the user's talk page and my own. SirFozzie (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: quick note

Ok :-)

Pahari Sahib 21:40, 13 January 2008 (GMT)

Request for info

I can edit now thank you. Some reference pages were left on my site and I am going over them. Not sure why I was frozen. I won't be making changes until I finish the ref. pages. I don't want to get frozen again. My name is not Steven though. I picked it from a trial(?) that was going on when I first found Wiki. One of the guys was up against 10 or more people. Seemed like an underdog to me, so I used it for my screen name. They were talking all on the military aircraft pages, which is my hobby. I think I will work on another subject though when I am ready.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMancarelli (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Democrats

The Democrats did NOT get their roots in the Jeffersonian Democrats or the Democratic Republicans. In fact, John Q. Adams was a Democratic-Republican losing to Andrew Jackson the first Democrat. Get your fucking shit right. If you knew shit from fruit, you would know the your thumb doesn't belong in your ass. Jefferson as with the first 6 Presidents would be Republicans today. The article is WRONG and you are making it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waggthedog (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Woooah, there. Like most Wikipedians I generally prefer calm conversation to flame warring. If I made a mistake in reverting, you're quite right to point it out, but quite wrong in your methods. Care to try again? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

leik zomg u rvrted mah edits u no nuffink – Gurch 05:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's almost as good as this one (almost a year old now, but still lol-worthy) Orderinchaos 12:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your blocking of 65.24.238.60

I noticed that you blocked this IP for two days. However, in the past he was blocked for 12 days and one week. I believe that blocks were to escalate to longer periods. Won't a longer block be more appropriate. Thanks! Marlith ^T/C 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks to be a shared IP address (not by masses people at once, I don't think; more likely by multiple people over time), and hasn't been an apparent source of problems since the last block in November. Could always be reblocked in the event of more problems in the near future. Appreciate the attention to the issue, though. :) Feel free to point out if I'm missing something. You're more than welcome to get a second opinion (probably the village pump or admin noticeboard would do fine), and I don't anticipate having any objection if somebody alters the current block settings. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Marlith ^T/C 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looked it over again, since you seemed to have a point. I think I'll extend the block. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Marlith ^T/C 05:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

202.95.200.17

Thanks for telling me to use talk pages. I'm already starting a discussion on Talk: Fuel starvation about why editors are reverting edits on "Fuel starvation". Can you contribute in the discussion? The talk page on Fuel starvation is hardly noticed most of the time.

--202.95.200.17 (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of the Real KFI

This is John Ziegler, the writer of www.therealkfi.com which I understanding you are censoring. I believe you are doing so under a misunderstanding which I would like to rectify. Can we speak about this?

thanks

John Ziegler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow the censorship claim: your website is your business, quite naturally. Content on Wikipedia, though, needs to comply with relevant policies. My comments at User talk:Grafofoni are probably a good starting point, if you're not clear where I'm coming from. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of Real KFI

What exaclty is poorly referenced at www.therealkfi.com??!! It is incredibly WELL referenced. There is actual audio and newspaper links to back up much of the content and I witnessed everything that is in there. There has not even been a request by those named to take the site down or even edit it. There has not even been a threat of legal action. You are arbitrarily censoring this because I REPORTED that everyone I know at KFI BELEIVES Ken to be gay. I go out of my way to say I do not KNOW if he is gay. The reader can decide for themsleves if I am right or that is relevant, but this in no way violates your standards and if you think that it does I would respectful submit that I deserve a SPECIFIC portion of the site that alledgedly violates your standards.

john Ziegler

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You're self-publishing with no editorial oversight, I gather? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that you don;t allow posts from websites created by individuals???!! Give me a break! You can;t even say that with a straight face. I am a nationally known commentator (ranked the #54 talk host in the country by Talkers magazine), I have had two books published, I am producing a major documentary right now. What more do you want? this is hilarious.

That is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, actually. Again, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The things you're saying may or may not be true; the relevant thing from my perspective is whether they can be verified by mainstream secondary sources. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT your standard. I can find 1,000 examples of personal websites that write about figures and are on wikipedia. I WAS THERE!!!! Don;t you get it? What difference does it make if a write for the LA Times interviews me and writes about it? Who decides what is "mainstream"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I would like an example of what you have a problem with on the site.

It makes a world of difference if the LA Times writes about it, actually, because the LA Times has professional reporters, fact checkers, editors, lawyers, publishers, sponsors, and hundreds of people staking their very livelihoods on the factual accuracy of this secondary source. Eyewitness accounts are certainly of value, but are a primary source -- Wikipedia generally prefers secondary or tertiary sources, especially in cases where WP:BLP applies, and even moreso in cases of contentious material. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

STILL no examples!! Gee, I wonder why.

If a Times reporter interviewed me and wrote about they would not have any of those people involved in the process. You have no clue what you are talking about. Riddle me this, why has Clear Channel not even threatened legal action?

Secondary sources???? What are the damn audio clips??? I don;t think you ahve even looked at the site! You jsut saw that it SEEMED that I was outing a gay man and censored it. You are a fraud.

You seem to be getting pretty upset, judging from your typing; you may want to step back and return when you've calmed down a bit. As far as "outing," I'll put a bit more emphasis on it: we do not post contentious material about living people unless it is reliably sourced; such material may be removed from Wikipedia pages on sight. Your website is not a reliable source for this sort of information, by our policies and norms. You're welcome to post whatever you like on your own website, as is your right, but Wikipedia is not your website and has editorial policies by which content must abide. Would you like it if we posted such things about you because some random blogger said so? I'd imagine not. Why is it surprising that we'd show someone else the same courtesy? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Look you sanctimonious nazi, I am not some "random blogger"!! I was THERE, I am very public person, I backed it all up!! And, for the record, THIS IS NOT ABOUT POSTING THE INFORMATION, it is about LINKING TO THE WEBSITE!!! That is totally different, is it not??!

Ooh. That means you lose. HalfShadow (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I am just a random blogger not worthy of breathing your air you will have to explain what the heck that means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you won a very high priced Godwin point. Spend it carefully. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Defintion of Defamatory

BTW, do you have any idea whatsoever what the legal definition of defamatory for a public figure is? It is that the person wrting or speaking has to KNOW what they are saying is false or, at the very least have a reckless disregard for the truth. That isn't even CLOSE to being the case here, which is proven by the lack of even the slightest threat of legal action.

BTW, I have recieved WELL over 1,000 e-mail from KFI listeners thanking me for the site and backing up ALL of the info in there.I would be happy to forward them to you.

John Ziegler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Could you please explain how one person, with my track record, who saw everything themsleves and backs it all up with audio is not a "reliable" source? So if there is only one witness to something that is willing to speak (unless they own a major newspaper) then that is not a reliable source until a major newspaper reports what they say they saw?

You know this is crazy. Just admit that this is about protecting a presumed homosexual and I will go away and just trash you on the radio and my next book (which, btw, is cited on wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've suggested several times, please take a look at WP:RS. This isn't a turn of phrase I'm making up on the fly. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I ahve read it. TWICE! That is not your standard and you are flat out lying when you say it is. There are thousands of personal websites with facts/opinions linked on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't take them long to screw that up, did it?

And I thought school made you smarter... HalfShadow (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, some people just can't take a hint on when to stop digging. Eh! :p – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghanadar galpa

Hey luna santin your freind ghanadar is vandalising articles now why dont you block him isnt it time to be fair articles like indian parliament attack and indophobia. Time to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.149.202 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected one article, and will keep an eye on others. For future reference, it's very helpful if you give me a link to relevant pages so I can figure out what you're talking about. Ultimately, all of you guys need to get to dispute resolution, pronto; these nationalist disputes have never ended well on Wikipedia, that I can see. We're not trying to prove any particular side "right," just to try and give a neutral summary for curious people. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that you carefully investigate the edits of ip trolls before taking a position on this issue. [10] such as touting hate speech[11][12] and touting rabid conspiracy theories [13] while evading blocks by using sockpuppets. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My general view here is simple: edit warring is bad -- you guys need to work out your differences and talk things over, if at all possible. If you can't work together, pages are likely to be protected, and whenever a page is protected it's always going to be in a version one or more people don't like. Moving along, "biased hindu views" is hardly hateful; "deleting islamophobic indian propaganda" is a bit more uncivil. It is true that the user is on a dynamic IP address, but that's not something they can control and doesn't equate to use of sockpuppets unless it's done abusively. Do you have any evidence of such abuse? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Double standars

the moderaters on wikipedia are wonderful people im sure but how comes they have such a anti pakistan biased veiw on things while good old Ghanadar is allowed to say all the rubbish he wants even when i give sourced articles he crys and plays victim. How can i stop this dynamic ip its not my fault PLEASE STOP DOUBLE STANDARS AGAINST PAKISTANI ARTICLES, P.S i dont give hate speeches its just that Ghanadar has a habbit of playing the victim biased indian veiws aint racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.241 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You could get an account (and here's a few reasons why it'll make a few things easier for you and others), and I generally recommend that anybody who plans to stick around does so, but ultimately that's entirely your decision. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Luna you havent answered my question darling why the double standards when pakistanis gives valid sources why are they called vandals and indians angels??

Oh yes i had like 3 accounts becuase i didnt grasp the way of logging in so i kept making new accounts (i know foolish) but i cant make a account becuase im some sort of suck puppet can you tell me how to make a account or appeal against this and what is a dynamic ip cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.241 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to answer the question as you've phrased it: you've given me no context, no specific incidents to comment on. For the rest, a dynamic IP address is one that changes (say, every time you connect to the internet, you have a different IP). You should be able to register, if you like. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But im always connected to the internet why does my ip keep changing its bad becuase ghanadar can expliot this and cry to moderaters like you and play the victim can you check this article please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001-2002_India-Pakistan_standoff i have given sources yet he deletes its a crucial bit of info it states india lost 800 men and ghanadar desperately runs from this fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.241 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC) http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1972788,00.html heres the sources ghanadar deleted the citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.241 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The source that the troll cites is being misrepresented in the article. I suggest a careful perusal. First of all, it's an op/ed writeen by a controversial pro-Islamist author Arundhati Roy, whose been known to engage in factual distortions.Secondly, nowhere does it mention a 1 billion dollar loss as the edit by the troll indicates. Furthermore, given the pattern of his changing ip's which magically coincide with the blocks the ips get for vandalism and trolling, I'm disinclined to buy his sob story that the ip's are changing involuntarily Ghanadar galpa (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The indian troll ghanadar cant seem to grasp the fact india lost 800 men and more than a billion dollars its written in the article can this indian troll read or not it states in the 3rd paragraph Ghanadar is a insecure indian who uses nationalist hindu sites to justify his extreme hindu and pro indian views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.208.20 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes indian troll the factual evidence is in the 3rd paragraph stop ducking and masking articles with your shallow narrow pro hindu and indian veiws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.208.20 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I really have to respond to such bigoted and disgusting remarks? Can there be any further doubt as to the trollish disruption that this fella is causing?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, i request a read of my post here [14].Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To 86.156, that sort of attack isn't going to help the general situation or your case. Please try to appear reasonable, as the tide of opinion can turn quickly. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Its seems to me Ghanadar is inwilling to recognise the 3rd paragraph of the article on indian parliament attack why are you so scared? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.42 (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you said. Please rephrase if it's important. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks...

...for the help with Wolfwillripyourfaceoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a week ago, and for reverting the vandalism to my user page. That was the first time my page has been vandalized, and it was infuriating; I guess vandalfighters get used to it over time. :o) Thanks again! Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Very used to it, yes. :) The proverbial wisdom I've heard is that it usually shows you've done a good job, someplace. Glad to be of any service, and of course feel free to grab me if they keep bothering you. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the unblock now i don't feel sick it was upsetting me that i could not edit and you have made it all better thanks so much :) Jay2k (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jadey Wadey"

Thank you SO much for blocking that guy. I've seen some real vandals on this site over the years, but that monkey really took the taco. You've always been a genuine asset to this site. May your mop and bucket never falter! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Could I impose on you to lock out the talk page? Our monkey is still at it. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Why, thanks. :) I'll take a look at that talk page, and protect if they keep at it. Usually I figure a "caged tiger" isn't much of a problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, he just did it again a few seconds ago. I managed to find a really silly template that another admin had slapped on a similar user. It's just too darn cool to be ruined. I'd like to visit it every once in awhile to renew my own sense of purpose.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• And one more time. I'll give him this much: He's a persistent little twerp.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I got up for a bite to eat, and here I see it's been protected while I was away. Oh, well. There's always another day. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:O

*huggles* Huggle (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Sorry! My mistake... --Solumeiras ^talk 12:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. :) You've been doing great work. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, it's just AIV is a bl***y distraction from mainspace editing!! Glad you could help! Solumeiras —Preceding comment was added at 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tingari - thanks!

Many thanks for removing the banner. I see that I also forgot to bold the first use of the entry term... I knew I was bound to miss something!

In future I'll endeavour to use a different referencing system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LloydGraham (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One think that would help me is a URL for existing categories in Wikipedia. Haven't yet found one, depsite searching.

LloydGraham (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful reply... what you say you normally do is exactly what I had done, I just wondered if there were other categories I should have included.

LloydGraham (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

edting one's talk page

Last I read, users may remove the warnings. These were old, so they don't seem relevant. I agree with the protection though. Maybe now we can have some peace. :) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my read, too, but ending the edit war seemed a bit more urgent. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Dlohcierekim 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for dealing with that sock farm at my talk page. It's very much appreciated! --Oxymoron⁸³ 12:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

spammer

if spammer returns i am holding you responsible for not blocking long enough--Seriousspender (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It should be easy enough to reblock in such circumstances. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you come across any more...

If you come across any more of the D&D tag-removers, there is a checkuser case on them here. Feel free to add them to the request. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'll see if I can add some a bit later. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are more every day or so. Every time I look, I find more — sometimes ones I've missed for a week. This has to move up a notch. I do note that many editors have participated in reverting the tag-removers and appreciate it. FYI, I have been restoring tags removed without real effort at addressing the issue. Sometimes whatever sock has made a few trivial edits in the same edit as the tag-removal and unless I see something substantive, I undo those at the same time; and sometimes trivial edits have been made subsequently so that undo does not work, in which case I revert the lot. This show disturbing planning on the vandal's part. --Jack Merridew 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE) Alison caught it on the same IPs as our old giant friend! I'm already getting Hagrid's umbrella, mind bumming Harry's wand? -Jéské ^{(Blah v—_^v)} 06:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Scientology

Thanks for reverting the vandalism, I reported the IP to WP:AIV. How did you first notice the vandalism?Cirt (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Me, through a filtered recent changes feed on IRC (see WP:RCP#Tools). :) Glad to help. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again! Cirt (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

User Page Vandalism

Hi, i was one of about twelve or so users whose userpages were blanked and vandalised by User:Shipyears. Question: why was I targeted by said vandal? i am rather prominent on WP:AFD and i patrol Special:recentchanges for vandalism, may that be why? I thank you for taking the offending edit off my userpage. The edit proclaims "Due to rampant deletionism by this editor, this user page has been confiscated by Ass Pus Productions®, a division of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Concerned parties may see Foundation:Contact us)" Which is unfunny. Very unfunny. especially because he overflowed it. I would like to know what links me to the other eleven people whose userpages were vandalized (which can be found here. Much obliged, Doc Strange (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I never did figure out what linked you all, unfortunately. A few users were targeted for more harassment, shortly thereafter, but I haven't seen much of anything since then. If you see any signs of a return, I can at least block and protect as needed, in the meantime, though. Sorry I don't have all the answers, but hopefully that's some consolation. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The only think I know links me to some of them is that i'm a regular at WP:AFD. Maybe we voted delete on one of this guy's articles and he took it the wrong way. But nonetheless, thanks for the revert of that malicious edit and I will contact you if there is any return. Much obliged, Doc Strange (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found a small link between me and a few of the other people who User:Shipyears vandalised: we're all either Twinkle users and/or Recent Change Patrollers and/or voters on WP:AFD, which continues my theory that this user was out on a Vendetta against Wikipedians who revert vandalism. But aside from that, virtually no one project connects all twelve of the affected users together. It's almost like he picked us at random almost. In fact one of the affected users hadn't edited an article for almost a month prior to the attack. The more research I do on this, the weirder it gets. Doc Strange (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of Iamthemika

Hi. I was reviewing the edits (including deleted contributions) of User:Iamthemika after seeing the report on WP:AIV. I posted an voablock note and was proceeding to indefblock - and see that you have issued a 1 hour block. In view of deleted and reverted contributions, do you think a longer than 1 hour block is in order? — ERcheck (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to go with shorter blocks, generally, especially if a user hasn't been active very long or hasn't gotten many warnings -- the idea being that some people do come around, however unlikely it may seem at first. Obviously this user behaved pretty abusively, though, so if you want to extend the block, feel free. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise....I am in favor of short blocks to get the attention of editors. But, as you noted, this editor's behavior was pretty abusive. I'll keep a watch. If the editor returns with any vandalism, I'll voablock. — ERcheck (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm I always told Luna he was too damn nice with his blocks. ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just a courtesy note - letting you know that the user FagTaggr/Highbrow was actually a long term abuser under two of his many socks, per checkuser. Orderinchaos 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... explains how Highbrow got caught in FagTaggr's autoblock! Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! I wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't previously dealt with him to know what to expect, though... he's doggedly consistent, but inside a very limited arena. Orderinchaos 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

I've always taken it that sourced content should not be removed without consensus; next revert will break 3RR. Basically he's unilaterally owning the article, and I'm trying to stop him. Or should I get some sleep? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is edit warring, but that's hard to do alone. ;) I'll see if I can jump-start a discussion on the talk page. There doesn't seem to be any rush to get this done immediately, we can probably afford to wait and talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's why I went along the {{subst:uw-delete1}} route, because it does invite discussion. However, he's now stopped. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Primetime

FYI some accounts that you blocked recently: "Kjgbnfjg", "Handsfudn nn5", "Nadjht45", "Abovelabel33", and "Efgnj", have turned out to be socks of Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's a longterm pest. The latest socks are listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: He's almost certainly responsible for the recent vandalism to your talk page. He's targetted a number of admins who've crossed him. In my case he mass-reverted my edits, vandalized my talk page (including page moves), and sent hundreds of emails. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack on James Stewart (actor)

See: 172.143.87.209 using the same MO as Harv. See: [15] Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

War of Empires Wikipedia page

I have made some edits to the War of Empires Wikipedia page (209.151.133.226 (talk · contribs) and 64.229.228.64 (talk · contribs)).

Unfortunately, I did not notice a pre-existing vandalism that said: "A worker is any peasant that has been trained into the wood workers, farmers, stone workers, or miners category.because it is the best history of past that happened in Australia." which was added in a vandalism on Revision as of 06:43, 21 August 2007

An editor named "Marasmusine (talk · contribs)" flagged the page for deletion, citing unreferenced material.

I assumed it was the vandalism he/she was referring to and deleted the vandalism and the "PROD" as that seemed to be what the instructions were saying.

In less than a minute another editor, a new one named "Rustong141 (talk · contribs)" renewed the PROD. I am not convinced he/she read my edit to fix the former vandalism, and I really do not think that less than 1 minute is a fair appraisal of anything.

You seem to be the mentor editor to "Rustong141". Would you please explain the problem with the page that got it on schedule for deletion now, when clearly it has been vandalized and fixed many times in the past -- just not entirely so until today.

For the record, I oppose the proposed deletion. I have been programming, playing and contributing strategy guides for strategy-type computer games since 1980 and in my opinion War of Empires is truly remarkable and noteworthy in a number of aspects that may not be fully presented in the Wikipedia page. Would you please get someone to explain in the notes page for the War of Empires page what it is they find problematic about the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.228.64 (talk) 24 Jan 2008

Added a few links to the above comment, will have a look in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha; I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! and comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Empires. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting my talk page

Wonder what I did to get the fool's attention? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. They seem convinced they're on some sort of anti-deletionist crusade; looks more like "harass people I don't like," but that's up to interpretation. Feel free to grab me if they turn up again. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the users in question

Thanks for responding to my post on the Talk page. [[16]] is one I had a problem with. It didn't vandalize recently, but its edits have been pure vandalism and it continues to return after short blocks to vandalize further. Enigmaman (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I see nothing but vandalism for a prolonged period; I've given it a three-month softblock, which is usually enough to discourage vandalism while allowing in whatever decent contributors may happen past. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of a softblock before. Does that mean edits have to be approved or something? Enigmaman (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Users with accounts can still edit -- blocks anon-only. We also have an option to allow/disallow account creation from the IP (in this case I allowed it; most vandals aren't that determined to vandalize). – Luna Santin (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what you're saying. Seems like that would be good practice for a lot of the IP vandals. Enigmaman (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I don't know if you're the right person to ask about this, but there are typos within the "Request protection" tag. Enigmaman (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon-only is the default block option, I believe; it's sometimes turned off, for example if there's a strong reason to suspect sockpuppetry from the IP. As for the template, I don't think I've actually seen {{Request protection}} before, but it seems like an interesting idea. The template itself doesn't appear to be protected, so you should be able to edit it. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. The user created the template and then immediately started using it. Unfortunately, English is not this user's strong point. Thanks for all your help, Enigmaman (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and you didn't close the tag on that template. I'm going to see if I can fix it. Enigmaman (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Blargh! Good catch. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance needed with revert warrior

Hiya, I'm contacting you more or less at random since I've seen your name around, and need an "uninvolved admin" to help out with something? We've got an edit warrior, PHG (talk · contribs), who's engaging in a "slow revert" war at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. He comes in every day at about 6 a.m. GMT, and "reverts" to an older version of the page that's about 200K in size. We've got a bunch of other editors who've been reverting his changes to get back to the consensus version (a condensed article that's about 70K and we're trying to improve), but this has been going on for days now:

• January 25, 05:07 (reverted by Aramgar)[17]
• January 24, 05:16 (reverted by Aramgar)[18]
• January 23, 06:00 (reverted by admin WJBscribe)[19]
• January 22, 06:07 (reverted by admin Elonka)[20]
• January 21, 05:33 (reverted by admin Elonka)[21]
• January 20, 06:17 (reverted by admin Shell Kinney)[22]

PHG is not breaking 3RR, but neither is he stopping this "once a day" activity. And of even more concern, in some of his "reverts", he's actually adding in information that was never in the article in the first place,[23][24] to the tune of about 50K of information. We've proven and re-proven consensus at talk, and asked him many times to stop, but he lies and denies and wikilawyers and keeps right on going.

Do you think that there's anything that you can do to help? We've already got multiple admins in the fray, but obviously we can't use tools since we're involved, so we really need assistance from someone completely new. Any help appreciated, --Elonka 08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Will see if I can help. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! :) --Elonka 08:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IP

I'd bring that IP up on the Qwerty of Man checkuser case; table Goatse.cx pictures tend to be a calling card. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Some stupid person is having fun here. That's fine with me: it keeps him off the street. But it's also rather a waste of other people's time. Sprotect? -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they've been at it for a few pages since earlier this month but seem to focus on mine, past few days. Sprotection usually stops them for a bit until they change pages (few minutes or hours; might depend how close attention they're paying to what seems to be a botnet). I'm torn between seeing it as the easiest-found list of abusive open proxies and zombies I've ever seen or wondering if it's a waste of resources. The constant reverts only bother me insofar as they interfere with regular use of the page. :) Thanks for the help, everybody. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not for the first time, I too thought about the medium-term advantages of providing the halfwit with a playpen. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Punahou School Ban

I'm not sure if this would be in keeping with usual Wikipedia policy, but I would like the ban on my school's IP range to be made permanent, and I would like for new accounts from the IP to be disallowed as well. This is the third time that our school has been blocked in this year alone. Permanently banning this IP from editing or registering would not prevent students from accessing Wikipedia as a resource, and it would not even prevent legitimate edits from anyone with the minimal amount of dedication required to register an account from home.

I believe that there would be no harm done. If you wish for the vandalism from this school to stop, you must permanently prevent anyone from registering an account from here.

Sincerely, ~Kazu (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Would be tricky to look into that without knowing which IP(s) you're referring to, of course. ;) I've blocked a few schools on staff request, as I believe community consensus is that doing so is generally appropriate... not sure if your being a student changes that, but it might, so I'd probably submit it for consideration at some place like the admin noticeboard. If there's a history of persistent vandalism or other abuse, I might be more willing to act unilaterally. Apologies for the delay, I've had a very busy weekend. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but from the looks of things, the actions taken in the past (temporary bans from editing) are all that is allowed for under WP policy. I'll be sure to chime into the noticeboard if I see warnings appearing on the school IP, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazuhiro808 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i'm new to wiki

Luna, I just started editing and looked at John Deutch's wiki entry. You were on that page very early. Have you since followed that page's history? Nukeh (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)NukeH

Not sure what page you're asking about. John Deutch redirects to John M. Deutch, which in turn disambiguates to John James Deutsch; I don't see that I've edited either page. Am I missing something? (I suppose that my failure to remember the page in question is probably an answer to your question, in itself: it seems I haven't been watching it closely.) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No

I am not pacman. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But but... :( – Luna Santin (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

( < – Gurch 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Watching Serafin socks

Nicolaus Copernicus gets frequently vandalized by user accounts that fit into Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin. Apparently, you don't monitor User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin anymore, as your last edit was in March? As several accounts seem to have been created on 23 September 2007, some preemptive measures could be taken, maybe, against other accounts created then and never used since? Is it feasible to "three-quarter-protect" a page against users which have less than e.g. 10 mainspace edits? -- Matthead  Discuß   01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been using the page recently, no; I'll see if I can find time to, or other people are more than welcome to use it, in the meantime. Will take a look and see about semi-protection (regarding protection levels, the only currently available levels are semi or admin). As far as the accounts, that'd unfortunately be several thousand of them, which would be pretty difficult to check. =\ Will take a look in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On Nicolaus Copernicus in particular, I would recommend short-term full protection when Serafin comes around -- can post to WP:AN/I to request help, on the next attack. If that won't work out, the unfortunate choice is between long-term full prot (locking out most editors) or sticking with semi prot (which obviously isn't keeping out the sleepers). If we think it'd do much good, I could try giving it full protection for a week or so; might discourage them. Tricky one. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My request

Luna,

Thanks for getting back to me, just to let you know it was all one big misunderstanding, I had an apology and I was happy with that, anyway thanks again for getting back to me :-)

Regards
Pahari Sahib (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. :) Seemed pretty much resolved from what I was looking at, but wanted to be sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for additional help

There's more. Look at this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.2.70.204. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.96.73.99. Its ban has somehow expired already, because it's back to vandalizing. Enigmaman (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... blocked users can still edit their own user talk page (provided it hasn't been protected), which I presume explains the second IP's continued trouble. Looks like neither is active at the moment... if they return on the same IP, we could go for a longer block; if they come back on a different IP, I'd recommend reporting to WP:AIV. I generally assume IPs are dynamic unless I have reason to think differently, which would seem to preclude a block this long after the fact. Does that cover all bases? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. :) Enigmaman (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about this one? [[25]] Wow. Enigmaman (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked that one. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Great job on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-14/Tutorial Thanks for helping us learn Jeepday (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't realized that was already published. :) Thanks! – Luna Santin (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Makeb2

Hi Luna Santin,

I noticed you blocked the user for trying to restore the AfD tag to the current FA of the day. Given that the username/pattern of edits matches those of Makesbasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who put up the original AfD nom and is a blocked sockpuppet of Th45623j (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), may I suggest a more...permanent vacation?

Thanks! --jonny-mt 06:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Extended to indef, for now. Know I've seen that behavior, before, but didn't realize it was ongoing recently. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action! I've added an update to the thread at ANI. --jonny-mt 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for your message.

Before you came charging in to threaten me in the capacity of an administrator, I trust that you actually read the points being made and checked the edit history on the the page itself? To me it looks like you didn't so, based on this assumption, I would like to ask you two questions.

1. Wikipedia is not a democracy and yet you seem to be talking about "concensus" in terms of building a democratic majority. Apart from the fact that this is against offical Wikipedia policy, the very claims being made about this article are that it reflects concensus but it is severely biased as that concensus comes from only one section of the community at large (and not even the majority section at that). Concensus involves everybody does it not? And though the contributors to an article may be in concensus, that is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that an article's content reflects the concensus of the intended audience, the actual "concensus" that should be achieved. I trust you understand the difference?
2. If a claim is being made about bias then it is imperative the "globalise" tag be attached to stop the audience being misled while any such discussion is going on. However, attempts to secure the tag onto the page, even after proposing valid changes, have been unsucessful. Instead, without discussion, tags were just removed. If the article can't be tagged and there is no fruitful discussion then the only remaining option is to make changes directly to the article. And yet again, without discussion, all changes have been just rolled backin an "edit warring" style, the very thing you accuse me of. So given that both the guidance tags (which don't actually change the content of the article) and propsed changes were rolled back without real discussion, the only option left from the start was arbitration, the last stage in the Dispute Resolution system that you infer is not being payed any attention. Am I correct in inferring, through the tone of your message, that you condone this kind of overall situation?

The issues raised in the article's talk pages go beyond the article's bias which has been proven to exist; the issues go to the very heart of English Wikipedia's ability to let its contributors manage content and to present unbiased and neutral information pertaining to the whole of the English-speaking world, not just the United States. Any attempt to block a user just because a "concensus" could not be reached between a non-US contributor and the rest of the (predominantly US) contributors could easily be interpreted as racism by the wider and properly balanced audience outside of Wikipedia's contributors, should that wider audience be given the opportunity to judge for themselves whether the article, and Wikipedia as a whole, is biased or not. Any person can give that audience such an opportunity regardless of their status as an editor within the system.

I am politely asking you to be impartial. Fairness, in Wikipedia articles, and in the way Wikipedia policy is applied by its administrators, is the cornerstone of Wikipedia's ethics and reputation, of which you are both an ambassador and a trustee. However, the fact that it appears that I am the only person you decided to notify, despite a continuous four-month stream of people who have blatantly flouted editing, etiquette, verification and neutrality policies, is evidence that Wikipedia itself is currently biased. It is not an understatement to say that Wikipedia's reputation hangs in the balance when any claim of national bias appears to be unsolvable, so I am politley urging you to be cautious and fair in whatever actions you may deem necessary as an administrator of this system. Please either reprimand everybody in the situation or don't reprimand anybody, but reprimanding only one side makes you guilty of bias and instantly destroys your credibility as an administrator, and potentially the overall reputation of Wikipedia, irrespective of the system-level measures you are authorised to impose.

Andrew81446 (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You crack me up. You wrote that extensive thing to accuse Luna of racism? Killing me here. Enigmaman (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

racism²

Andrew81446 (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Very disappointing.

Every time the page as been edited that page edit has been undone. i.e the number of changes and the number of reverts are the same. Don't you understand the meaning of the word "war"? It takes more than one person to have a war as it is impossible to war by oneself. As an administrator I hope you realise the consequence of your actions:

1. You have victimised only one side of a dispute when a dispute is made up of more than one side (hence it is called a dispute).
2. Having deliberately sought out and victimised one side of a dispute, you have then blatantly shirked your duty of impartiality as an administrator by putting the sole burden of reporting offenders from the opposite side of the dispute on the person you are victimising, because you just couldn't be bothered to analyse the situation from an impartial point of view.
3. There are serious claims of bias against an article which have already been proven and yet, through your actions, you have sanctioned the removal of the {{globalize}} tag(s) on that article thus encforcing pro-US national bias within an article when English Wikipedia is for the entire English-speaking world.

I am not going to do your dirty work for you. How dare you try and pawn off your responsibilities onto a normal editor of the system. You hunted me down and deliberately singled me out. Now go and find the others and perform your duties properly as an administrator of this system, otherwise I shall be making formal reports against you (however that might be possible) that you are engendering and promoting national bias on English Wikipedia by intentionally only taking punitive measures against non-US people who happen to be speaking out against the prevailing US dominant point of view while trying to bring about some kind of neutrality (in normal language, racism²).

There is a serious dispute outstanding and you are calculatingly obstructing a fair an impartial resolution. I am monitoring you.

Andrew81446 (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Immediately roll over and agree with everything you say"? You will kindly quote from my post where I said such thing or you will apologise. How dare you even be elected an administrator with that appalling kind of attitude. You are getting onto very thin ice making those kinds of accusations against a normal user (who has legitimate claims about national bias) when the record clearly states that no such accusation was made or even implied.

You, as an administrator, have a duty to be impartial on this system. That means you don't victimise one person, you treat everyone in the dispute with the same level of tact, so that everybody in the dispute knows that an administator is watching. For example, you actually post to the page in question and you enforce the presence of discretionary tags like {{globalize}} while the discussion that first warranted the tag is continuing. Your current actions deliberately give weight (which I am sure that is the intent) to the people I am arguing against because you are not even approaching them, and your shirking your responsibility by expecting an ordinary user to go and do it instead. It doesn't matter how bad you think an argument looks, that is the nature of discussion and your only responsibility in that situation is to make sure that the discussion continues in a manner such that all parties are equally supported or impeded. Any other approach is partiality and partiality and administrative responsibility are mutually exclusive.

To reitereate, I am not going to do your dirty work for you. You deliberately singled me out. I would like to see you being impartial by finding the others in the same manner and issue the same warnings. It's not difficult; read the discussion on the Talk Pages and look and the edit history on the page. If you do, you'll see that again the {{globalize}} tag that I legitimately put on a page within the last 24 hours got removed without any justification and while the claims of national bias are still outstanding. I am counting each time you berate me in a message and let others get away scot free. Administrator on Wikipedia is a position of kudos - it's about high time you starting earning that kudos instead of asking ordinary users do the difficult work. Normal users have a difficult enough time as it is handling the views of other users without having biased administrators adding to their problems.

As I said, I'm monitoring you.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The arrogance that you term a user's legitimate complaints as "a mantra getting old" is gut-wrenching, if not wholly unexpected.

While you're seemingly macho actions may look impressive inside this system, outside of Wikipedia I can easily find around 100 million or so people who might just agree with me, enough people to discredit this entire English Wikipedia system. Indeeed, it is no exaggeration that the reputation of Wikipedia now hangs precariously in the balance and only you can now stop a scandal. If I don't get joy from Wikipedia itself then I am sure the Worldwide Press will have a field day as I quote your actions and responses to every newspaper across the English speaking world. God bless the internet - just a single login to Reuters and it's game over. The World loves a good scandal, especially one regarding the way US citizens rebuke and treat foreign people, something which seems to be hot on everybody's lips at the current time. My recommendation is that you hope that the Wikipedia system can somehow majically accomodate me, a lone non-US citizen fighting to be heard.

By the way, no need to reply. The "circle" ends here.

Andrew81446 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

... in other news: people already know there's drama on Wikipedia. Now let's get back to what's usually in the news: naked chicks banging high schoolers. That's what the people want to read— not intelligent, rational disagreement about globalization of Wikipedia articles. --slakr^\ talk / 12:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew is "monitoring" Luna. That should really scare us all. Andrew, thanks for linking to a definition of racism. That further proves my point that you were way off base in your accusation. Help is always appreciated. Enigmaman (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Luna is on-notice. --slakr^\ talk / 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you so afraid of? I mad loony like me who is actually aware of the national bias that is propagated by adminstrators and editors of this system, going to people outside of the system and making them aware of what goes on inside the system? Inside the Wikipedia system you may have power, but people outside the system who have this idea that Wikipedia is this lovely, glowing, neutral pool of information need to be informed of what is actually going on. I don't care how you phrase it, or how you try and belittle what I say; the undisputed fact is that there is an article (probably one of 1000s actually) that is seriously biased culturally, within a service that is is meant to be neutral, that it is your responsibility as an elected official of that service to be neutral, and you are obstructing the proper fixing of an article (or maybe 1000s) so that it continues to reflect national bias of a single nation (you're nation probably).

I don't have to state any opinions, I am simply going to reproduce the entire talk pages of the article, all contributors' comments including yours and mine (which are public domain I do believe), and let the facts speak for themselves: that a person who raises claims of bias is rebuked with cries of "old mantra" (very compassionate) and that asking you to due your duty as an administrator equals a request to "immediately roll over and agree with everything you say". The facts will speak for themselves.

As a taster, here is a sample from one of the other contributors on the Hacker page whose actions you are condoning due to your failure as an administrator to be neutral. You can find it in the talk in Chapter 25.

The United States is the ultimate, imperial authority on the English language. It is the defining culture of the English speaking world. It provides a verified, proven, authoritative and definitive understanding of words that you and your inferior country are obliged to accept. The United States is the most significant country in the world, by means of language, education system, government, policies, currency, etc. Your country, and other English speaking countries, or other countries in general are insignificant, unimportant and irrelevant compared to that. How the word is understood in the United States hence has priority; and how it is understood in other countries is relevant only when it comes to nuances.

Don't think I'm bluffing about anything. The problem with people who are backed into a corner with nowhere to turn is that they have nothing to lose. Do I care if Wikipedia collapses? No, as my views were never reflected in it in the first place and were always being beaten down and belittled by the likes of yourself. And don't talk of Dispute Resolution to me. You killed all credibility in that system when you came crashing into my talk page first of all threatening me with your administrative powers. Why would I use a system to resolve a dispute that's potentially executed purely by people like you? No, people outside the system are the only neutral people I can rely on and unless you show me otherwise that you can be neutral, I shall be turning to people outside the system for a final verdict.

You can stop this situation at any time. That's what I'm watching you for, in the vain hope you might actually stop people propagating the awful, racist, ranting like that above.

Andrew81446 (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing changes. It takes more than one person to have an edit war and you refuse to reprimand the people who keep removing the {{globalize}} tag that I am putting on the page because a person is making claims of bias and those claims have not been disproven. It's now four times I have requested you to do your job and ensure that policy is applied impartially that those tags remain, and that the people "edit warring" my tags off the page are also reprimanded in the same way you have done so to me. However, it is at least five times that somebody else has "edit warred" my advisory tags off the page and I have had to put them back. In fact, the last time was "RTC", the racist ranter, barely 10 minutes ago. Therefore, you have ignored my requests, and failed to do your job, 100% of the time.

Please start doing your job and stop victimising a single editor at the expense of those who you "support". Every day you decide to not heed my requests just results in more evidence to present to the general public on the day that I finally lose my patience.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, an action that seems to have been taken against all people in the debate instead of just one person.

However, you locked the page while letting someone revert the advisory tags when there is a debate going on about bias. So now the globalisation warning is locked permanently off the page. The tags' sole purpose is to warn people when there is a debate about bias going on. And now there is a debate going on, you have shown your prejudice by permanently locking the tag off the page.

While all the pro-US editors and administrators within the system seem at ease with this situation, I am sure the rest of the world will have no problem at all recognising the prejudice intended by not putting a warning tag on an article when the debate surrounding the article shows unresolved bias claims and the warning tag's text clearly states "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.".

Please put the {{globalize}} and {{globalize/USA}} tags back on the page as their sole purpose requires.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My prejudice is simple: "edit warring is bad." When protection becomes necessary to prevent edit wars, it's long been traditional to protect the page in whatever state it happens to be in -- reverting to a particular version would seem to constitute an endorsement of that version and would surely compromise the administrator's neutrality. In this case, the tag you're asking me to add is the subject of recent edit warring. I do not have and should not express an opinion on whether or not the tags belong (I could perhaps act if a consensus can be demonstrated, but at least for now I should leave that to others). Currently the protection is set to expire in about a week. Feel free to request edits by placing an {{editprotected}} template near any proposed changes on the article's talk page; an uninvolved administrator should review the request. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me in the record where I asked you to revert to any version of an article, let alone my version. The tag is not the subject of the editor war, the article's content is. If you had done you're job as an administrator properly from the start, instead of picking and choosing to apply policy when it suits you, you would have known that.

I am putting on the record that you, an administrator, are stating that an advisory tag with the text "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.", whose sole purpose is to warn people that the Consensus system might have failed and that national bias has crept into the article, actually requires that very same, biased, consensus system to be applied in order to authorise its use on the page. That is what you stated is it not?

I could perhaps act if a consensus can be demonstrated, but at least for now I should leave that to others

If the consensus system was working the article wouldn't be biased and the tag would be unnecessary. Thus your statement is a contradiction, and it's attempted use by yourself as rational argument now completes your prejudice. I have all the evidence I require regarding this particular discussion. I shall do as you say for now but, as soon as the lock comes off, I am going to invoke WP:IGNORE with regard to the Consensus system that, in your very own statements and reasoning, has been proven to be completely uncorrectable, something that the actual Consensus policy itself states must never happen. Any punitive action you take will be duly recorded and presented to the wider audience at the due (and rapidly approaching) time.

Andrew81446 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal

[[26]] just came back from a block and vandalized the same page (Christmas) twice, once after my warning. I saw that it's registered to Plymouth College, but I'm requesting a lengthy soft-block. Enigmaman (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[[27]] is another from an institution with a lengthy vandalism history. OK, this one just got a two week soft block. Enigmaman (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

205.222.248.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just got blocked by Slakr for two weeks (they may be back, but I try to avoid heckling other admins over their block lengths unless it's important). Blocked 217.205.7.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned the block in the second post. It's unfortunate, because the admin was too lenient, in my view. Oh well. I have another one. [[28]] warned repeatedly, deleted warnings and replaced it with swear words. He's due for a block, IMO. Another is [[29]] Enigmaman (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Another. [30] Thanks again, Enigmaman (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 83.242.24.3 and 69.154.147.2. Not sure about 12.129.230.13, but I'll keep an eye out. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. What about this? [31] It's amazing the amount of IPs I'm coming across with extensive vandalism histories. Enigmaman (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked that one, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[32] just back from a block, and started vandalizing again almost immediately. Enigmaman (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to report them to WP:AIV stating that they just came back from a block, you'll get a faster response. (I am not implying that Luna is slow) ;0 -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. I know AIV is the proper place for it, but I've had problems getting vandals blocked on AIV (I used to frequently report vandals on the AIV page). If they are blocked, it's often a really weak block, like 24 hours. Thanks for handling the block. Enigmaman (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Log of Block based on ArbCom decision

Luna Santin, thanks for implementing this block of user:matthewsanchez. As I understand it, this block should also be logged on the decision page here. Am I correct, or have I misunderstood? Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: Also, is a notification on the talk page or user page of matthewsanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needed? Jay*Jay (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Missed the log, will update that later this evening from my main account. Regarding talk page notification, I thought about it but decided against creating additional Google fodder for the guy; this may not have been ideal, though, so I appreciate your attention to the matter. Lunasock (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Luna, thanks for making the entry at ArbCom. FYI, I posted here as I thought you had acted on my WP:AE report and just not said anything, but following that found the WP:AN/I discussion which probably prompted your action. I understand your rationale for no user talk page notification - makes sense. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that sums up my involvement pretty well. Wasn't closely involved in the arb case, but was aware that it was going on, and this seemed pretty unambiguous at first glance on AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Working Group login

Hi Luna Santin, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia, I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar.

Thanks! I'm not quite as active as I once was, but I still drop by and see about doing what I can with the time I can spare. :) All a team effort, every bit helps. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about user accounts

I know WP policy is probably to leave accounts alone, but is there any way to change my account name to Enigma? When I originally signed up, Enigma was in use. I just checked, and that account | has not made any edits since August 2003. Thanks, Enigmaman (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's an unregistered name you'd like, there's Wikipedia:Changing username; if there's a registered username you'd like, there's Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations -- last I checked, though, names with any edits are rarely (if ever) usurped to maintain GFDL compliance. Granted it's been a good while since I looked. Hopefully that's enough to get you in the right direction, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I put in the request but unfortunately it looks like the few edits the account made in 2003 will disqualify my request. Enigmaman (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock/Alerts

Seems I've deleted this twice now. : / The last time you commented that you were going to move it; it came up on a query again, and thus, was deleted.... Feel free to undelete, however, it really doesn't seem all too used. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. Turned out we can't move pages in the category namespace, and I was unable to get a developer's help to move it, then kinda forgot about it. May as well leave it deleted. Further alerts can probably be made directly on the CAT:RFU description page or on a transcluded Wikipedia namespace page. Apologies for the slow motion wheeling. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie_Gauci#Song_and_album_comments

Please go ahead and make the change requested, I'm not sure what I was thinking...cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

please, mediate Magnetic monopole discussion

At Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Nondimensionalized.2C_SI.2C_and_CGI_comparison and Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Emphasis_here_is_to_the_symmetry.21 -- 12 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixo2 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

protection on Hacker

Shouldn't you add a note to the top of the page, aside from the Talk page note? Enigma (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I still wish we just had a Mediawiki solution, since the templates are a bit cumbersome, but we can't have everything. ;) Now let's hope I remember to remove it. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will remove it when it's unprotected! Anyway, what do you mean by a Mediawiki solution? Something that would automatically leave a message when a page was protected? Enigma (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Something akin to bugzilla:10347. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

Could you please fill me in on how 361st Psychological Operations Company came to be deleted?

I started this article, correct? I don't remember requesting deletion. Whoever nominated it didn't honour the deletion policy recommendation of giving a heads-up.

I know I am not the only person who think the courtesy heads-up should be compulsory. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's three deleted edits at the page you linked. User:Smcelravy started the page on 4 January, then blanked it about ten minutes later. A few minutes after that, User:ClanCC tagged the article with {{db-blanked}} -- generally when an author blanks a page they recently created, it's taken as a hint they want it deleted. I don't see your username in the editing history. Are you sure you have the right page? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for checking. Geo Swan (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Gauci false messages

If you will check the history of the page, you will notice that I originally added both statements, to present a neutral point of view about Natalie Gauci. These were then modified to present false information about her, which is that she is all wonderful. If you wish to follow WP:NPOV, there are 2 alternatives, either remove all statements about the reception of her changing songs (i.e. simply say "She changes lyrics in songs") or put in both the positive and negative reception that she received. It is a verified fact that her alteration of lyrics received widespread negative publicity, something that I reflected in the article. It is obvious that her fans are going to say nothing but nice things about her. This part doesn't need to be said in the article at all, and it is very biased to say it, unless it is coupled with the negative.

This is the whole issue that I had, in that there was a push to put in many false things about her that put her in a positive light. It is a verified fact that her album and single sales were low, the lowest ever by a winner of Australian Idol. There are many verified facts in there that were being removed. These were being replaced with unverified statements.

Please can you alter the page to reflect a neutral point of view. Thank you. Dyinghappy (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the article talk page, asking if anyone would object to the change. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And there are clearly objections. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. It has been published from the number of news sources that her renditions were mostly praised from the audience. I'm using an article here [33] that clearly comments about the audience being impressed about her renditions. There is no source that states about any negative commentary of her performances. That was what WP:NPOV clearly states, keep it verifiable. I don't know what Dyinghappy is trying to prove when he/she says "It is a verified fact that her alteration of lyrics received widespread negative publicity", unless Dyinghappy will attempt to give sources like I have.

In my opinion, I would change the wording of the sentence, citing the source which I've given. Write abotu the fact that Natalie impressed the audience with her renditions of "Umbrella", "Running Up That Hill", "Crazy" and "Here I Am". Thank you for reading. RaNdOm26 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it not true? There are gazillions of sources for this. "Mostly impressed"? She got bottom 2 for the Boys in Town thing, and got huge criticism for it. What are you smoking when you say nonsense like that?

My point was to create a balanced, neutral article, which is clearly not happening right now. There is an organised attempt via a forum to pervert the article.

Anyway, I am sick of this nonsense. This isn't enjoyable. If my name is going to be smeared through this nonsense by a bunch of fanboys who just want to tell lies about someone they like because it makes them feel better, then let them go for it. I don't care enough to want to go through such a stupid fight.

It just makes Wikipedia look bad to have false information about someone, and to impress only one side of who someone is.

She wasn't the least popular Idol in history for nothing, and she didn't get huge criticism for winning for nothing. Just blanking all of that out is irresponsible, and Wikipedia will be the only place other than fan sites devoted to praising her (who are supposed to be biased) that does it. Its ridiculous. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't find your argument very strong as you can't even name ONE source to backup any of your claims. And no, there are no gazillions of sources for this. I'm not enjoying any of this either, so thank you. RaNdOm26 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser clutter

My apologies for having triggered an avalanche of debate posts on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Downtrip it was a oversight on my part and will not occur again.Freepsbane (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Query: Triberocker

I requested a checkuser on Triberocker. The outcome was “likely”. But I see no indication from his blocklog or from his talk page that action has been taken. I read on RfC that “In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself.” but I'm not an admin.

Whom or what should I contact to seek some further administrative action?

(I queried Metros, since he'd had previous dealings with Triberocker; but Metros seems to have become inactive just before my query.) —SlamDiego_←T 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting to WP:AN/I and saying the case has results which need looking into; I might be able to do something about it, if I find time to look into it this weekend, but I'm on a bit of a trip and may not be very available. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I have posted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#“Likely” (not merely suspected) sock- or meatpuppetry by Triberocker. —SlamDiego_←T 02:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hacker followup

Hi.

After putting the issue to a vote, I have archived the talk page at Talk:Hacker and am starting again. Earlier today, Andrew81446 used a non-logged in sockpuppet to pretend that there are third parties who agree with him. My evidence that this is a sockpuppet can be found in the ongoing conversation this same IP address was having with OrangeMarlin, here and, earlier, here. Given the deliberately deceptive nature of this act, I'd like to ask you to look at the evidence and impose a short block for disruption. I'd block him myself, but since I have been involved as an editor on the page and article, it wouldn't be appropriate. If you could look at the remedy discussed on the talk page and indicate there where whether you think it's appropriate, that would be helpful as well.

Thanks,

Nandesuka (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It does look like it's most likely the same person. Is it malicious, though? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to claim to be someone else, a claim that doesn't seem to hold water. I'm inclined to keep a close eye on it. Feel free to get a second (third?) opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at China

Help! go to China its severely vandalized and locked to administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanutbutter685 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Might have been template vandalism; I don't see a problem, currently. Is it still there? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RFArb case

Editor Andrew81446 has filed an arbitration case where he has mentioned your involvement. He did not list you as a party, but because he invokes your name and has a few words, I figured I had better add you as a party. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. Left a brief statement. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal

[34] I saw you reverted one of the IP's edits, and it has a long vandalism history. Enigma ^msg! 01:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• 220.245.209.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Enigma ^msg! 04:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• 202.79.62.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) one that you've warned in the past Enigma ^msg! 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

220.245.209.187 (talk · contribs) we can keep an eye on; last block was six months ago, we can see if they keep at it. It does have one decent edit, recently. 202.79.62.21 (talk · contribs) I'm not sure about, personally, I'll see about asking for other opinions if I get a chance. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Both have at least a few blocks and very pretty talk pages with warnings plastered all over them. That's why I put them here. :) I feel like there's a lot of pressure, because admins will only block within a few hours of the last vandalism, and if not, then I'll have to wait again until the next time they vandalize. Sorry for putting it on you, but I'm just at a loss. Enigma ^msg! 03:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bayeux

I had asked Wknight94 to block that IP address for awhile, but you beat him to it... a Lunar Eclipse, as it were. Speaking of which, I just went outside and checked it out. Beautiful and clear sky. And below 0 here in the State of Hockey. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Got to see it right out my window, too. The eclipse, I mean, not the IP. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Sorry for the intrusion but could you look at this article? A series of anon IPs (same person based on comments) has added an unusual addition under popular culture with no attribution other than his/her viewpoint/OR. Of a more serious nature, the editor has also made inappropriate comments on the article's discussion page and my talk page. Thanks for your assistance. FWIW, I may be asking a number of admins for their review of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Sorry for the delay in replying, looks like I missed a message or two at some point. From a glance, it appears other people you contacted were able to resolve the situation. Do let me know if you still need my attention, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Editabuselinks

I concur, wholly inappropriate to single out one user in a sitewide navbar. MBisanz ^talk 10:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Seemed odd, figured I should have a look. Not sure who AtidrideBot (talk · contribs) might be, but they're probably not a newcomer. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking this might be a mistaken intention. Seems that the subpage has been assigned the shortcut WP:AN/B, which could be confused with WP:AN/I. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet found

I've found another sockpuppet of Komodo Lover/Snakezilla/Black Rhino Ranger/etc here. Dora Nichov (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like a case to be answered, but I'd like a second opinion from someone else familiar with the above users, to be on the safe side. My recollection's not as clear as I'd prefer. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly "familiar" with him, you can also try Triceratops9. ;) Dora Nichov (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees	WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status	Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: Michael Snow	Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned	Two major print encyclopedias cease production
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia"	News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Family Guy
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 13:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

MCVerstappen and Ernienotsowise

Thanks for the heads up. They look like sockpuppets to me. The relevant IP address has also made some edits to the same article. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw the IP, too. Thanks for having a look. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Super-spam?

This guy's sole contributions [35] center on a not-yet-released CD set that he had a part in producing and which will be available only via the internet. I say it's blatant spam and self-promotion, and should be reverted. What say you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be I'm not seeing something in particular, but if we take this long-term diff (or this longer one), it looks like he's editing about other things, as well. He's made quite a few edits in a very short period, though, so I wouldn't be surprised to have missed something with a quick glance. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have directed you to this [36] on the talk page. He's the producer of the CD set, it hasn't shipped yet, but they're taking orders (imagine that!) and it's a "limited edition" not available in stores, so they can set a high price. I ain't buying. In more ways than one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:68.175.69.223

Hi, could you add this sock to the block log here? Thank you. Benjiboi 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Safe

You think it ought to get protected? It's been getting a lot of blanking/vandalism/spam lately it appears. -WarthogDemon 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an odd one, wouldn't have expected an article like Safe to have those sorts of problems. Well, maybe self-promo shouldn't be a surprise. Gave it three days of semi, since it doesn't seem to have much recent activity outside that. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rexykik

thanks for being civil about it : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexykik (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your understanding. I wasn't sure if there was any way to go about that without leaving a really sour taste in your math. Glad to see that doesn't seem to be the case. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Love

Kitty53 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For you, Luna.Kitty53 (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Request Block to Stop Edit War

Hi Luna. User:Ward3001 has reverted User:Fredrick day and my post to show image on Rorschach inkblot test regardless of consesus or policy. Request help or direction. Regards--Garycompugeek (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is pointless now. User:Cbrown1023 has protected page. Withdraw block request. --Garycompugeek (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I'm a party in the dispute, I have a conflict of interest and should avoid using admin tools to resolve it. Involved editors including myself can post to the 3rr noticeboard or requests for page protection if needed, in the future. Not that this is a highly useful reply, but I figured I should say something in response. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I figured that might be the case but was confident you would provide a direction if needed. You make good points about test invalidation examples. I have yet to concretely find any previous consensus. The TALK appears more like those opposed simply gave up and left in frustration. Things will work themselves out.--Garycompugeek (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach

I just wanted to be sure you understand that I really did not take offense, nor was I bothered, by your question. I don't just assume your good faith, I deeply believe that your question was in good faith. I'm just in a very difficult position of having to answer questions about statements made based on my expertise when I am told that an expert's opinions are out of bounds. I hope you understand. If you ever wish to discuss any of this truly privately, let me know and I'll give you my email address. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can sympathize with having to recount things said long ago in a different context; thus the apology. I wouldn't say an expert's opinion are out of bounds -- I'm not clear on exactly what your level of education/training is, here, but I don't really need to, I think, just to be glad we have somebody with direct knowledge of the field participating. Without naming names, I gather some of the other regular contributors are, as well, but I try not to go digging around into people unless they make things obviously public or I have a pressing reason to. We don't appear to agree in this particular dispute, but I welcome the discussion. :) Thanks for your time. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: You are being talked about...

Thank you for this note, I appreciate being able to tell my side of the story quickly :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could be helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A favor

Could you do me a favor and fix the cut and paste move of Peter Maivia Jr to Peter Maivia, Jr.? I'm asking directly cause not controversial, it's obvious that's where it should be, according to WP:NCP. It's just requests at WP:SPLICE tend to take awhile and you were the first admin I saw online. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it taken care of. Thanks anyways. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Awhoop. Sorry for the delay. Lemme know if anything else needs doing. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Komodo Lover is back again.

His newest account is User:Puncharoo and he's still insulting us. I think he needs not only to be blocked, but his talk page protected. CBFan (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm contacting AndonicO (the original blocking admin), to ask if he would mind if I extend the block to indefinite. He does seem like a very likely sock (especially with this edit.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Seems resolved; I wouldn't call myself an expert in this area, at any rate. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re your block of User:Witysmartone

Hi, just wondering why you only blocked for 24 hours? If you look at the contribs that user has failed to make a single constructive edit so far - normally that warrants an indefinite block? -- Roleplayer (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing too mysterious. :) The user was only active for about 40 minutes, in all. In my experience with basic vandal accounts, the duration of the block only rarely makes any difference in practice. Most times, they never return even after a short block. In the event they do return, they'll either continue disrupting the project (in which case it's easy enough to re-block) or will contribute helpfully (in which case we're better off than when we started); in the former case, the indefinitely blocked vandal will be quite able to return using another account, anyway, so the term "indefinite" can be a bit misleading. If there is a danger in this strategy, it's in allowing a number of iffy accounts to sit around autoconfirmed, but we tend to do that already, with a few thousand every day. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK thank you for the rationale! -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you

For protecting my page from random IP vandalism. That guy was pesky. =) DiverseMentality (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be helpful. They might be back, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

insultive user

Hi,

I have taken your advice and wrote this on that talk page. "I apologize if my edits caused you edit conflicts. It was definitely not my intention to do so. I would also appreciate if you would address the matter in less aggressive way next time. Thank you."

We'll see if this user answers.

Thank you for your effort!

--Avala (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, he changed it from fucking idiot to idiot after I apologized for edit conflict - [37]. Some people just cannot be changed. --Avala (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Help removing "disputed" banner

Hi Luna,

You helped me once before on a technical matter, so I am hoping you can do so again.

I am a research scientist with direct expertise in the area related to the WP entry 20-hydroxyecdysone. Some months ago I edited this entry quite substantially, after indicating in the Talk page the ways in which I intended to clean up the the article. At that time the entry did indeed contain some strange claims and had - correctly - been flagged with a banner about disputed accuracy.

As a professional in the area, I would say that the current version of the article is balanced. There has been no dissent to my revisions (indeed, no interest at all) from former editors of this entry, so I think it's time to take down the warning banner.

I just don't know how to go about doing it.

Thanks,

Lloyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LloydGraham (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. If you see the {{disputed}} at the very first line of the article (while editing), that's the bit of text that calls the template notice (the two curly braces "transcludes" a template, the text between them is the name of the template -- some templates have "parameters" set apart by vertical bars like |, if you see that). Removing the {{disputed}} text will get rid of the template. I can do this, if you need, but figure I should give you a chance to see it in action. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now removed the banner. I thought banner templates were protected, so I assumed that removal of this one would be reversed by a bot unless I had admin privileges... but maybe only some types of banner are like that. Thanks again. LloydGraham (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of IP 165.228.137.158

Thank you for blocking this vandal IP, however I noticed that this block was only for 24 hours and that the user has 5 previous blocks, 2 of which were 3 month each. I was wondering if a longer block might be in order? Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If it continues vandalizing, sure. From experience, it looks like the IP is probably shared by an ISP (between several people over time, not by masses of people at once). It has been a source of problems, but the previous block was about six months ago; we can probably afford to re-evaluate based on recent behavior. If you're still concerned, though, feel free to get another opinion. Appreciate the thought and effort, either way. :) Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair approach, thanks for responding so quickly. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reduction in scope of {{Template:Forms of government}}

Since you have been active on the template talk page before, I thought I would let you know that I have initiated a debate to reduce the size of {{Template:Forms of government}} here. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to Piotrus statement

Here [38] --Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prussian Blue (duo)

An editor has nominated Prussian Blue (duo), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (duo) (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

a PageRank boost for Wikia

Hi. I saw your comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Relocating non-notable fictional material and would like to point out an issue; one I've raised before and gotten nowhere with. See these example links:

• http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Stargate:Children_of_the_Gods
• wikia:Stargate:Children of the Gods

They both go to the same place; the first has a rel="nofollow" automatically added while the second does not. This gives Wikia a PageRank boost for every usage (and there are many thousands) of the interwiki form of link. I believe that this happens for other prefixes, too, but am not sure. This needs to be changed for the same reasons that the regular link has the nofollow inserted. This is a serious conflict of interest for the non-profit org vs the for-profit Wikia as the same god-king is involved. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it gives anything on the m:Interwiki map a PageRank, in theory. I tried to let some people know about it as well, but I should probably have left a note on the meta talk page. I'll do that now. -- Ned Scott 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, and thanks to you both for pointing it out to me. I've been mulling it over a bit, not sure quite what to make of it. I tend to think interwiki links are handy, if we're regularly linking to a given site, but the nofollow issue may complicate that analysis (especially given possible conflicts of interest, if there's not a WMF-centric reason for their inclusion in the link list). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be a very easy fix, I'm just not sure who to tell this to. -- Ned Scott 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

History merge...

Hey, when you merged the WP:SUICIDE articles, you didn't do a history merge. Might want to do that... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, is that standard practice? I'd figured I shouldn't, in case somebody wanted to reverse the merge -- I did act unilaterally, after all, even if I waited a while. But I'm not feeling picky about it (if anybody wants to, feel free; if not, tell me I should). – Luna Santin (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, History merge is kinda hard to undo, and makes history navigation harder, I don't think we routinely perform these. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jamiechef2

Hey - noticed you reverted this, thanks... can you check the rfcu page and the couple things I've sent Alison since? Nobody's gotten around to blocking this abuser since the CU was proven. M1rth (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for prodding me about it. Any mentioned account is blocked (either already was or is now); they may be coming at us from a dynamic IP, so I've semi-protected both Hummus (two weeks) and Talk:Hummus (five hours). Anywhere else they're currently active? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They hit Mujaddara... you might ask a checkuser to re-run the check, every time Alison runs it she finds 2-3 extra new socks popping up (see what I mean on the rfcu page linked above). It's a pain to fix made worse by users like Tiamut and Jd2718 who are likely not socks but tend to agree with Jamiechef2's POV-pushing. Also has been known to pop up on Za'atar and Falafel, though Falafel is protected right now already thanks to Tiamut going at it with Gilabrand. M1rth (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Checked around once or twice, but haven't seen any more of them; if I'm just missing it, or if they come back, feel free to grab me or post to WP:AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Wwwhatsup

Thanks for looking out. I've been a bit too busy to look after it myself these last few days. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Feel free to let me know if you have any more problems in that area. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)