User talk:Luna Santin/Archive 18
| Talk – Sandbox – Suggestions |
|
This is an archive of past discussion. Please do not modify it.
|
|
Thanks again
Thanks for helping to clean up the stalker's mess. None of the three admins who "warned" me for my so-called "personal attack" even bothered. Sometimes I do clean it up my self, but sometiems I don't, so admins like Thebainer won't accuse me of violation the WP:DENY and WP:DNFT essays. I'm glad to seee that you are willing to help out rather than pile on. I know I don't always handle things perfectly, but I do try. Mess up once tho, and all the do-gooders will join in on the harassment! Of course, I wouldn't blame them, since the stalker usually goes after the admins who revert and block him. So again, thanks for being different, and for reaching out rather than stomping down. - BillCJ (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- (late reply, sorry) It's a tricky balance, yeah. I can sympathize with your frustration. To be fair, though, the others may have a point -- if you continue the antagonism, you're encouraging them to stick around and keep bothering you, whether for attention, out of spite, or whatever. Oftentimes our best defense, in the long term, is to just be a boring target, and wait things out. Everybody's heart is (hopefully) in the right place, here, just a question of how best to sort things out and keep people happy. Feel free to let me know if you keep having problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your Wikipedia
Are being taken away because you didn't pay. :O --CableModem^^ (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Photos
Do me a favor, and issue me an appropriate block so I can stay away from here and thus from the war-of-words over the ever-shifting interpretations of what is allowable content. I'm fed up with the deletionists here. Give me a one or two day block so I won't be tempted to argue with them any more today or tomorrow. By then, they will have already deleted everything, and it won't matter anymore. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like you've been talking things over a bit with Zocky; I think I'll let that discussion progress a bit more. He can be a very competent mediator, if you give him a fair chance, I think. Best of luck (but do feel free to let me know, if you'd prefer my continued involvement in whatever capacity). – Luna Santin (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
IP block
User:63.246.140.34 you blocked for an hour - it's an anonymizer so longer or not? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't think to check. Feel free to tinker. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers, still treading lightly, so prefer to ask! --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
IP vandalism
- 63.215.28.109 &63.215.28.110: are keeping posting fake information of Tom and Jerry , could help for this? 123.193.12.44 (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Saw the report at WP:AIV; unfortunately, this isn't something I know much about, I'm hoping another admin with more knowledge in that sort of area will come across it. Fortunately it looks like they're not moving fast, so time isn't entirely of the essence. You could post to the admin noticeboard if you like (or I can do that for you, just let me know). – Luna Santin (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please post this to the admin noticeboard for me, thank you 123.193.12.44 13:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Saw the report at WP:AIV; unfortunately, this isn't something I know much about, I'm hoping another admin with more knowledge in that sort of area will come across it. Fortunately it looks like they're not moving fast, so time isn't entirely of the essence. You could post to the admin noticeboard if you like (or I can do that for you, just let me know). – Luna Santin (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The lamb and the moon
I've just realized that the image changed depending on whether or not you were around. Nice trick! -- lucasbfr talk 12:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Though if nobody notices, the utility of it is probably doubtful. ;) You're the first to point out anything about it, I think. Thanks! – Luna Santin (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- no, we all know what it means– Gurch 09:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger, which was deleted per this discussion, which you closed. The review discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 30. I just thought you might want to know. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Block message getting cut off
My apologies if you're already aware of this, but your block messages are getting cut off (see [1]). Natalie 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ooh, I hadn't noticed that, yet. Thanks for pointing it out! – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- For that matter, the unblock-en-l link doesn't work either; it's looking for an anchor on the same page, but none exists. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- It should, when looking at MediaWiki:Blockedtext (last I knew). Unless you think that's a terrible idea? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- For that matter, the unblock-en-l link doesn't work either; it's looking for an anchor on the same page, but none exists. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks.
You are good!
I see you revert alot of vandalism. You're good! If i knew how to, i would give you a barnstar! Tech43 07:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, I appreciate the thought. :) It's an area I got into fairly quickly, but I wouldn't have much work to do if not for the many thousands of wonderful writers who have made the project what it is, today. It's all a team effort! – Luna Santin (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup. You really are good. I liked that team effort thing. Do you ever laugh at how stupid the vandals usually are? I do. Sometimes, vandals are so funny, you almost don't wanna block them or warn them, ya know. Tech43 07:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes, indeed. Used to have more fun with it, I'm probably all jaded and grumpy, these days. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can attest to the grumpy and jaded part. O_o KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Goodnight Luna San
Lulz were had and now it is time to retire. Best of luck...70.251.67.133 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
CyberHawk 241
Thanks a Trillion for getting this guy blocked! you really are a great editor on this site! Tech43 21:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Smile
NHRHS2010 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.
Your endorsement of Perspicacite's position
Is this a correct statement of your position: [2] at User talk:Kirill Lokshin?
Do you indeed endorse User:Perspicacite alias Jose João's position (not my own, which is that he should simply cease reverts and harassment of other editors) that an RfC would be a waste of time and that we should proceed directly to an ArbCom considering my conduct? Alice.S 09:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't recall making a statement to that effect, no... but I'm not sure if Perc is saying I did, it looks (to me) more like he was saying several users tried to mediate, with mixed success. That seems to be an accurate description, as far as I know. Feel free to ask if you need any further clarification. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- With anyone else, I'm sure you'd be right. But then, with anyone else, I could just ask them and reasonably expect a reply. Is there anyone that P would take advice from? (I'm giving up). Alice.S 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
Hello Luna Santin, can you look if I've filled out the templates correctly (syntax)? Thank you. --Oxymoron83 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Thanks for your quick attention! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've answered you're question to me on my talk page. Elhector 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Lots of admins needed
There is a user who is going around writing "ROFL LOL LEET" in LTTE article. Please can you take a look. KOS can also help. Along with any other admins who petrol recent changes. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 09:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair-use images
Hi,
My main dispute is over the images I uploaded. I looked at the tag that Betacommand is adding to the screen shots. It asks for the name of each article it is being used in, even though that list appears in the "File lists" section at the bottom of the screen. The source is obvious since they're screen shots. As I'm sure you're aware, there is no legal reason to be alarmed by the images. I even included a rationale below the tag. Perhaps Betacommandbot was looking for a rationale above it. So, any philosophical concern over whether they're "free" in the sense of being useable by other sites is too trivial.
A friendly pop in
Hello there! First off, that is possibly the most amazing lamb I've ever seen. :) The real reason why I'm here; just wanted to compliment you on your excellent vandal fighting. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wish I had made it, but the lamb is a piece of public domain clipart produced by Creohn (here), and I pretty much fell in love the moment I first saw it. ;) Thanks for taking a moment to drop off a note; I think of things as a team effort. Every bit counts! – Luna Santin (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh well, the lamb is still amazing. And absolutely! I'm a firm believer in the 'compliment your keyboard off' policy (to tell you the truth I just made that up); if I see someone doing something awesome, I compliment them. Wikipedia's gears are greased by communication between editors, after all. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note
Chris6730 (talk · contribs) - Guess it wasn't compromised after all. --Charitwo talk 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
RE:Innappropiate edit summary
Thanks for the note, I will see to it that my actions are improved. Forgive me, as I was frustrated. Marlith T/C 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Normally going to admins is not the route I choose. However, I think this has gotten out of hand. Initially I cleaned up the liks at credit crunch and left notes on the article talk page [3] and the users talk page [4]. I also saw that the user had added links to debt money which were not article citations but were just sites that sell the books and I removed them. While the user had initially agreed to leave credit crunch alone, the removal of links to the book sites sent them over the edge whereby I received my first [5] talk page message. I immediately replied [6] and received another rant [7]. I let some frustration get to me and made another reversion. After more rants from the user, I elected to seek a third opinion [8]. Following counsel from another user, I reverted the entire affair as well as the links to debt money. I am sure you will tell me that I could have handled it better. At some point, communication is no longer an option. This person seems more content to rant than discuss. But no one should tolerate the idiotic nature of the comments left on my page. Montco (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look, the bottom line for me is that I really don't know how much I care. The user is quite content to do his POV pushing routine on every article that he touches and will attack anyone who stands up to him. What he needs to do is stay off my talk page at this point. If no one else will stand up to his silliness and clean up his litter, then why should I bother? I don't have any stake in the game one way or another. The only thing I have tried to do is keep WP within the bounds of what is was meant to be, rather than a place to post personal views. If the links to sell books and the links with the unprofessional commentary are ok with you, they are ok with me. Too much low hanging fruit to deal with this nonsense. I am actually surprised that I wasted this much time on this affair. Montco (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- After one calm message was followed up with I'd be careful if I was you. The International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague is still in existence despite the recent departure of the chief prosecutor. The only two book references included on debt money have been torched. Please define "reference" book? How does a "normal" book differ from a "reference" book? Who decides (they are both published after all)? Surely now the article can be criticized as being "light on substance"? How do you counter that? With a web-based cartoon attached to the article? Montco, your hyperactive delete button needs less caffeine (or coke) and more common sense one can assume that rational thought has gone out the window. I couldn't care less if he is banned. And frankly if that's the way he conducts business, then if its not me, its someone else. After 6,000 edits here, odds are somone isn't going to like what you do. I have had my share and its usually been worked out. But that's the last I have to say about it. Montco (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Its got to stop. [9] Montco (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wish to elect Montco to be superbanned. His history reveals he is a compulsive, destructive, and recidivistic eraser. Nothing seems to stop him. He has also referred to other contributors in his history page as "jackasses" (QUOTE: "GOOD BYE JACKASS"). He has deleted your comments and my comments on his talk page. The guy is out of control and is destructive. Why he hasn't been banned before is beyond me. LOOK AT HIS HISTORY. Some people cannot be reasoned with. He is one very naughty little boy, who is apparently eternally on the look out for "low hanging fruit" (somehow the expression seems very apt). If you question my judgment, please check the history on his talk page. He deleted your comments - and mine. Repeatedly. Is "GOODBYE JACKASS" the work of a professional editor??? Someone you want on WP???? If so please refund my recent contribution asap. --Karmaisking (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Its got to stop. [9] Montco (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- After one calm message was followed up with I'd be careful if I was you. The International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague is still in existence despite the recent departure of the chief prosecutor. The only two book references included on debt money have been torched. Please define "reference" book? How does a "normal" book differ from a "reference" book? Who decides (they are both published after all)? Surely now the article can be criticized as being "light on substance"? How do you counter that? With a web-based cartoon attached to the article? Montco, your hyperactive delete button needs less caffeine (or coke) and more common sense one can assume that rational thought has gone out the window. I couldn't care less if he is banned. And frankly if that's the way he conducts business, then if its not me, its someone else. After 6,000 edits here, odds are somone isn't going to like what you do. I have had my share and its usually been worked out. But that's the last I have to say about it. Montco (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
ec'd
I am not sure I get the abbreviation.Montco (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry: edit conflicted. Nothing important, really. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 07:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please move a talkpage
Please move the talkpage for Dustbuster to it's correct title name. (I love entei (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
- Should be fixed, now. Apologies for the delay. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Downtrip / Wikzilla
Hello, in the past it seems you have dealt with User: Wikzilla who was blocked for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. The actions by another likely sock created shortly after Wikizila's block and kept as a sleeper account until his other accounts were blocked [10]. The Sock account has a identical style of editing and has edited only the same pages Wikizilla attacked the same editing style [11] [12]. A quick check shows the writing style used is also identical. Because of your status as a veteran administrator I ask you to look into this. Thanks for your timeFreepsbane (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for not specifing but the sock acount in question is Downtrip (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), thanksFreepsbane (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... they look similar enough that it may warrant looking into. I remember briefly discussing this with some other people who might be able to offer further feedback, will ask them about it. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thankyou your work is apreciated.Freepsbane (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (perhaps checkuser could be used?)
Site Block - 209.47.31.7
Actually Luna, I'd EXTEND the block out to 24 hours like the last two, and even extend the blocked range to encompass that entire section of the network (209.47.31.*), here's my rationale;
This terminal appears to be part of a public system (educational, library, etc.). The user, being blocked, can simply move to another terminal on that LAN, and continue their abuse. Waiting an hour is no sweat to some would-be vandals, they simply kill some time, then come back and continue.
This is just an opinion from an experienced BBS and network admin, who has dealt with problems like this in the past...Edit Centric (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could be an option. WHOIS says it's registered to Comcast, though, so I'm worried about collateral damage. The user quickly switched to 66.92.109.66 (talk · contribs) a few minutes after (open proxies?); while they apparently have the ability to hop IPs, a rangeblock may run the risk of blocking innocent users without much payoff in reducing disruption. Currently gave the talk page semi-protection, but I could probably extend that, at least. Playing it by ear, for now. Appreciate the feedback, either way. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
For that revert. For your information, that IP belongs to someone who keeps changing IPs to vandalize both my talk page, and another user's called Chris Chittleborough (see the history of that page). They go though phases of not vandalizing, and it seems they're coming into a new phase. I'm tempted to perform a range-block, but I don't know how to do one. Anyway, thanks again. :) Acalamari 23:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, thanks for letting me know. Looks like they don't stop by terribly often. Big range, probably shared with other users, which makes a block tricky. Brief semi-protection can frequently bore these sorts of people into inactivity, if they're only after a specific few pages. Will see if they come back in the near future. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- That was the other reason I wasn't going to do a range block; with protection, I've protected Chris Chittleborough's talk page twice, with the current protection ending soon. Thanks for the help. :) Acalamari 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Much appreciated
I've encountered a couple kooks on Wikipedia before, but this one seems particularly disturbed. Thanks for taking care of it (until OrderOfBush6/7/8...) Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Log in problem
Thanks for replying to my message. I'm having problems logging in. I am entering my correct username and password but it isn't working. I've tried the option of having a new password emailed to me but an error message comes up saying that there is no e-mail address recorded for user "DmanDmythDledge".83.70.239.84 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
RE:
Alright i shall do that! I just dont want what happend to my friend Lav who got his Idea stolen by a game company not just the image the name and made it there own sorry for the inconvinionce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitlames (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your really not understaning what i was saying i thank you that you acculy read the messege and its not some computer(well that was i think) but i have no consern tallking to you if you dont understand my message and the point it was a big deal in a chat on another site and really made people made the page was deleted after that chat i checked myself but its rediculs....
- Your really not understaning what i was saying i thank you that you acculy read the messege and its not some computer(well that was i think) but i have no consern tallking to you if you dont understand my message and the point it was a big deal in a chat on another site and really made people made the page was deleted after that chat i checked myself but its rediculs.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitlames (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just had a look at this situation and I have to say that I am amazed at the stance to you have taken with regards to this.
R. friend was in conflict with Domer48 and then R. friend revert to "his version" and blocks Domer48 without warning or an official report or without anything said to any of the editors on "his side". Surely this is not the correct procedure that an admin in conflict with another editor should take.
Domer48 should be unblocked, R. friend should have a sever wrap across the knuckles and then if needed an official report should be filed to determine if any blocks are warranted. I hope you have time to look at this situation with a fresh pair of eyes as it seems pretty unjust to me. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Luna, you had a good word to try to get R. fiend to de-escalate the situation mentioned above, but I just had my attention called to this lovely little bit of sarcasm. I really think R. fiend needs to disengage here. I don't know if it's just edit war frustration seeping in, or if he's trying to troll Domer and Dunc and everyone into firing back so he can have them blocked. I am attempting to WP:AGF here, but there's some serious bad faith going on, to my eyes. At this point, I'm tempted to protect the Easter Rising article and have them take it to an article RfC, or an editor/admin conduct RfC. Can you look at this situation and see if it can be managed, or if we need to take this to formal dispute resolution? SirFozzie (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- For the time being, I've protected the page due to edit warring. Gave it a week, but if things calm down by then we can revisit that. Will be leaving a message or two in a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Luna, a chara, with all due respect, page protect is not the answer. To suggest edit warring implies culpability from two parties. Look at the discussion page, I have applies our policies to this discussion. I have clearly illustrated the nature of my concerns on the information and the improper synthesis of material. Now we have enough wiki tools and policies to deal with this, page protection will not work here. Just look at this now, are we to page protect this article also. --Domer48 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's imperfect, but given that other attempts to stop the edit war have failed, it seems to be less extreme than sitting in wait to block everybody once they've made enough reverts. Ideally this forces discussion on the talk page. If some users are unwilling to discuss things productively, a request for comment might help. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Downtrip/Wikizilla
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla I took the initiative and Requested a checkuser on Downtrip (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and it found that he Is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the Indef blocked Wikzilla (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). In adition to this it was conclusively shown that he used sockpuppets to bypass 3RR on pages that he has edit warred on and to create the Illusion of wide support. Clearly he has and is violating several Wikipedia rules and some administrative action is in order. Freepsbane (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you run a sanity check on me?
Hi, I'm in the middle of a big IRL "oh crap" crisis and I can't spend much time on WP atm. A user I blocked, User:Danerunsalot emailes me denying he was a sock. Apparently I blocked him after Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Runnerguy this report, but looking (very fast) at his contribs I'm afraid I might have screwed up (ie it wasn't a WP:SOCK violation). Can you check that if you have the time? Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 11:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- KnowledgeOfSelf notes that lucasbfr is entirely nuts, and only makes sense when fed large quantities of cookies. :D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... well, it looks like the bulk of edits by related accounts were made to Dane Rauschenberg and Fiddy2. The particular account you've mentioned made just two edits to List of half marathon races, perhaps a similar-ish subject area but nothing that looks like foul play at first glance. That said, checkuser seems to have confirmed that it's the same person as the other socks, and if we're assuming blocks apply per-person rather than per-account... – Luna Santin (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Easter Rising
R.fiend is editing this article that you have put page protection on. He is blatently using his admin tools in disregard for the template you placed on it here. BigDunc (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like he genuinely believes there's consensus for that; is he mistaken? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus reached. Luna warned them not to edit this article. --Domer48 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see he's reverted himself, since. Gather this is currently under discussion at AN/I or someplace similar. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
138.39.7.3
For 8 solid months the IP did nothing but make unilateral changes in violation of MOSDATE, despite repeated warnings to stop doing so. Previously it has been warned for vandalism. The IP did not take any note whatsoever of the many warnings, but continued undeterred. That looks like a serial unrepentant vandal to me. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Middlesex County
You're welcome... hope things are ok... some of those Rutgers IPs belong to Rutgers computer labs, so it might be anyone making those edits sometimes. 165.230.143.152 (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- and, yes, the IP I'm using is a RU lab IP. 165.230.143.152 (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- which school? 165.230.143.152 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC) and :)
- cool, relax and enjoy yourself. I'm winding up my finals myself. The finals week ends tomw, I think. 165.230.143.152 (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- which school? 165.230.143.152 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC) and :)
Easter Rising
Hi Luna. I've made a suggestion at Talk:Easter Rising that if we can agree a form of words in talk, that we will ask you to implement the change. I've also posited that if the edit war is over, you might consider lifting the protection. All very hypothetical at the moment still, but would you be agreeable to that in principle? Best wishes, --John (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Probably, although I might be overly cautious about it. ;) If I'm unavailable or otherwise hard to get through to, other options include {{editprotected}} and the unprotection section at WP:RFPP. Will try and check back in, periodically. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Live Show Links
Can I not add an external link to a band's profile if they represent the "band's official download site" similar to livephish?Totalliveguy (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)totalliveguy
Threats
Look, I am just trying to keep the page readable in a nonridiculous fashion. I am not sure if that giant sheep on your user page is supposed to scare me but I do not think that keeping a page orderly quite constitutes a war. I would appreciate that, if you disagree with my edits, you would elaborate on how the page was more useful before my edits, insteads of leaving threats on my talk page. 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. I am sad to see that your impetus to do good as an administrator stops at preserving the old and collecting barnstars, instead of improving Wikipedia. Have a nice evening. 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For your tireless efforts in combating the endless cavalcade of vandals. Maser (Talk!) 04:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) |
- Ah, thanks. Appreciate the thought. :) I do what I can, but I'm still just one small part of an overall team effort. Every bit helps, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Banned user Kitia editing as User:December 21, 2012
I'm bringing this to you because you seem to be the last admin to ban Kitia. Is there a central page for reporting sockpuppets of this editor?
December 21, 2012 (talk · contribs) is Kitia (talk · contribs). Evidence: both edit articles on years, and both edit-war in American Pie restoring long tracts of WP:OR.[13][14]
What's a quick way to address this? I really don't wish to edit war in American Pie for the week or three a report to WP:SSP takes to be considered. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... seems possible? Could submit a request at requests for checkuser to see if they seem to match beyond pages edited. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a WP:USERNAME vio as confusing? --Jack Merridew 10:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... I don't recall any precedent as to whether a "date" username is okay/not. Not sure if it's ever come up, before. Taking the username alone, without considering any other potential issue, it doesn't strike me as an immediate problem, but it could always be discussed. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea about whatever the other issues are; didn't look. I just happened to notice the above heading near the top of my watchlist... and commented. --Jack Merridew 11:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- SP report here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kitia (2nd). Almost insultingly obvious. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- If it is really a problem I will change my username and it will be unavailable. December 21, 2012 (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea about whatever the other issues are; didn't look. I just happened to notice the above heading near the top of my watchlist... and commented. --Jack Merridew 11:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in fixing vandalism. looks like Mr. Dfrt5 is on a vandalism spree now. can you please take care of that. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to be of any service. Currently Dfrt5 is blocked from editing for 24 hours; that can pretty easily be extended if they keep on being a problem. :) And, of course, thanks for setting down new content so I have something to protect from vandals. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Question on Etruscan coins and in general
I'm in a situation where someone's making edits that are to my mind not appropriate for Wikipedia, but also possibly not blatant enough vandalism for me to want to risk 3RR stuff (which further action would push me past). As a friendly passing admin, would you be able to advise? Pseudomonas(talk) 11:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delayed reply. I see the article is currently up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etruscan coins, which might supercede the prior question. If the article is kept, however, I suppose it might help to remind the author that no single individual owns an article on Wikipedia, and that the maintenance tags invite other users to copyedit and otherwise bring the text more into accordance with general practice such as our manual of style; if all else fails, simply making some example changes (or, if you really must, waiting a few days and checking back to try again) might help. Hope that's good advice. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks :) Given another editor has AFD-ed the page, I'll just see what happens there. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank, Luna
I piss off anon IPs sometimes, as I do a bit of recent change patrolling, and I work with a few controversial articles, that anons frequently vandalize. I appreciate your keeping an eye out, and the semi-protection. Mr Which??? 17:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
my pleasure
my pleasure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.217.233 (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad
Hi, I saw where you protected Muhammad. There isn't really an edit war going on there. There are several sleeper accounts that have been sent to Wikipedia by an off-site petition that are vandalizing the article. --B (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Private Correspondence
Luna, we've tried to take it to talk. The one side keeps reverting to the version that has only their view on the main article. Mr Which??? 23:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you've commented on talk, which I do appreciate. :) Mainly a little edit summary like that seemed the way to go, since passing out a handful of 3rr warnings seemed premature. Suppose I'll protect if things keep up. In the interest of disclosure, I have edited the page previously, although I have no opinion on this particular dispute. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oop, I see it's been protected while I was replying. Consider that aspect of the issue resolved for now, then? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I see you have been involved in matters concerning the block of the ip 24.175.183.44 and the talk page of the same person, Xsyner. I am having trouble with him as he repeatedly removes block warnings and notices from his talk page. I gave him several warnings and eventually reported him at WP:AIAV. Nothing was done about this, and I am now beginning to wonder whether it is actually against policy to do what he has been doing. Several editor have told me it was against policy, and that's what I have been telling Xsyner, although he ignores my warnings. I'd appreciate it if you could help my answer these questions as soon as possible. Thanks. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 03:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I found that it's not against policy to remove warnings. It would have been nice though if the admin who removed the block request on AIAV would have told me why it wasn't fulfilled. This has nothing to do with Xsyner, but how did you get the header for your talk page and can I use it/find/make one of my own? Thanks. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- It used to be that removing warnings was against policy, then it entered a sort of grey area, and in current times it's explicitly not against policy but some people still labor under the impression it is -- so it's all a bit confusing, really. =\ If you still need help with this user, beyond that answer, let me know. As for the talk page header, you can see it at User talk:Luna Santin/Header; I pieced it together, over time, based in part on a number of others I'd seen. You're free to use it if you like (might need to be tinkered with a bit). You can also use other variants like {{talkpageheader}} or other such ones. There's quite a few options available for that sort of thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:(
You reverted faster than me Randomtime (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- :'( I get beaten by ClueBot a lot, these days. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 13:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Arnold Murray Article
You protected the wrong version. The version you protected is the gutted version an anon user has been doing since 10 December 2007. That is fine though, I pretty much washed my hands of it. This is why wikipedia has trouble raising money, too many personal agendas.66.57.36.56 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Might want to see m:The Wrong Version. Not to say I can't sympathize, but generally the only way to stop an edit war is by stopping people from editing, which involves either (a) page protection, or (b) blocking people. If you'd prefer I take the other route, I can; for the time being, though, having an opinion on this content dispute would mean I'm not neutral, which in turn would mean I shouldn't be acting as an administrator. Since I am acting as an administrator, I need to remain neutral, and avoid stating a preference for either of the two desired versions. Hope that makes sense. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Replied about goings on
Replied on my talk, and on AIV. This does seem to be confusing, including for me, but I am following suit of another, so... Gscshoyru (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the protections and everything... I haven't been around much lately, and I'm coming back, and I seem to have stepped on a landmine for my first reverts... ugh. I'll be back doing regular vandal-fighting rounds soon enough. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, yeah. ;) I haven't seen one that big in some time. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice
It's great that you are so "neutral." How do you keep from getting nose-bleeds so high up on your pedestal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dar8888 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Magic! More importantly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be more specific, if you have an actual legitimate complaint to air. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
why don't you respond
Why don't wikipedia rspond to this ????????????!!!!!!!! Remove the image from wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basem3wad (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Cyberhawk241 still lingers...
Remember this user? He is still getting on here very few days and adding nonsense images.... as an administrator, do you want to block him? Because clearly, he still hasn't learned his lesson. Please post your response on my talk page, and happy holidays. Tech43 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you...
...a hot chick? --194.251.240.114 (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, he's a sexxi boi! And he's mine! It's the rum I force feed him.... KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mine! :( -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 11:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nooooooo. You are lying! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mine! :( -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 11:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help there Luna. In the end I had to 24 hour block. 3RR violation and POV pushing, plus repeated insertion of discussion into the article mainspace seems to me to be a good enough reason (one hopes!) Pedro : Chat 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably too little too late, though; I'm reminded of that old story about how it's easier to change a meteor's course if you don't wait til the last minute. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly so. All is watchlisted, so if I need any further input or help I'll come begging, if that's okay!! Thanks Luna. Pedro : Chat 23:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly so. All is watchlisted, so if I need any further input or help I'll come begging, if that's okay!! Thanks Luna. Pedro : Chat 23:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
!
your protection of the liancourt article did not work, I think...o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... looks like those currently doing the bulk of the reverting have been blocked; I'll check in tomorrow, probably. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
possible vandal
172.212.125.33 and 172.207.208.120 (probably same author) appear to be vandalizing indian and chinese pages. Their changes appear to be very subtle but sometimes very disruptive. can you please do something about it. see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_history_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=176793086 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_history_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=176998365 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_history_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=176792565 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_history_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=178497448 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_history_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=178497448Preetikapoor0 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like a concern, but at this point those edits are nearly two weeks old; is this still a problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, his edits seem to favor a particular group. This issue is more like a concern. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.212.125.33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.207.208.120 Do we need to tell him about NPOV??Preetikapoor0 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- It'll be tricky, unfortunately: as you've probably noticed, they're switching IPs very frequently, and about the only thing subsequent addresses are sure to have in common is that 172 in the first octet. If they repeatedly edit the same articles, or if somebody spots them while they're active, it may be possible to get their attention. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, his edits seem to favor a particular group. This issue is more like a concern. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.212.125.33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.207.208.120 Do we need to tell him about NPOV??Preetikapoor0 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
LaruaWA11
S/he removed a section I added called "Indef" where I said "Can we just indef, this clearly isn't going anywhere". The fact that s/he knows what "indef" is, and that it's bad, probably means this is not a new user, and perhaps a sock of a previously banned user. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:05, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Was wondering about that possibility, yeah. I'll check in tomorrow, at some point, see what they're up to by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- i had a feeling that this guy would try this
- I kept deleting him because he has no right to malisciously attack me, and then follow me into my own talk page, and do the same thing again
- No one's asking why you deleted edits, and no one knows what you're even talking about. Instead of saying things like "this guy" and "him", try using names so we can follow what you're saying. I'm not calling you a new user, I'm calling you an old user. If you're experienced enough to know what "indef" means then you should also know that we have ways of checking whether or not you actually are a new user. It's also strange how little else you seem to "know" about how Wikipedia works besides that one detail, which by the way I don't think is all that obvious when used alone, as I used it. I used it purposely that way to see what your reaction would be, and that reaction was certainly telling. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:19, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)
user:71.149.161.91 ban
Yes can you help me here please Luna. I got a threating message from user "wknight94" saying he was going to report this the authorities. I told him it was my idoitic friend that mess with my computer. I told him that. Luna, I have to him and Bugs I didnt do the "death threat". I am talking on my eldorado name. Because this is my user name okay. Can you reply back Luna . ASAP , this is urgent. !Eldorado91 (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- The only "threat" in the mix was issued to me by the given IP address, "I'm going kill u" or some such, the same broken English that the above user is writing or effecting. [15] I reported this to another admin, but no action has been taken that I know of. As for this item [16] my connection to my previous user ID is no secret. Meanwhile, I've heard the "someone stole my ID" story before, so the apology rings hollow [17] [18] especially as the above user seemed to be ordering me not to report it ("Okay dude, your not going to 'report' that dude"). [19] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
He took his "case" to the notice board, giving you all a couple more IP addresses suitable for blocking. I also notified Wknight94: [20] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm assuming all of this stems from this user [21] with whom I and someone else (also vandalized) were having a problem, on some Bhutto pages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, seems odd; I'd originally been polite since the IP was blocked and it didn't seem to matter much whether they were/weren't the source of the threat -- arguing over it seemed to just give them a reason to stick around and cause a lot of awkwardness with no apparent gain. There's really no need for this sort of thing. We need to encourage them to disengage; if you have any more problems with them, feel free to let me know. Thanks for keeping me up to speed, so far. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have had an offline discussion with Wknight94 and will take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:15, 2
- Yeah, seems odd; I'd originally been polite since the IP was blocked and it didn't seem to matter much whether they were/weren't the source of the threat -- arguing over it seemed to just give them a reason to stick around and cause a lot of awkwardness with no apparent gain. There's really no need for this sort of thing. We need to encourage them to disengage; if you have any more problems with them, feel free to let me know. Thanks for keeping me up to speed, so far. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
January 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me to the user above. I belive this user that caused this "incident" should deserve a second chance. This might sound unorthodox to you Baseball Bugs; if this user that made the "threats" , if they were this "crazed out person" they would have just made sock puppets and "targeted" more people with "threats". I saw the history to your page, and I saw the "threat" this person left you. And also I notice they gave an "apology" on your talk page. Another question, I will ask you Baseball Bugs, if person said they were sorry do you think they can be forgiven. The person said they were sorry, and promised not to do it again. The person had a heart, and must have look at notice what they done , and ask forgivnes. You would not find that from a heartless person making "threats" left and right. So I ask you Baseball Bugs to forgive the person. I think that people deserve second chances. We as humans , we make mistake we should have a second chance. If the person said they were sorry, then they should be forgiven.Iron Valley (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Luna , I was refering to this "case" again because I was tired of reading the "bs" again on the ANI boards. And also I thought this person deserved a second chance on the account they said they were sorry for what they did. I just stated this above on the top if you havent herd of this or not. Iron Valley (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, this is about as resolved as it's going to get; is there some reason to believe differently? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was saying the in question here deserves a second chance, and not be in more "heat". The person said they were sorry, and promised not to do it again. Luna, do you believe a person deserves a second chance. If they didnt have a heart,or emotions they wouldnt have made a applogy.Also Luna the "threat" made didnt look like a "real" one; I saw the history on the user page it looks like vandialism rather a threat.Iron Valley (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replied to your talk; worth noting that User:Iron Valley is currently blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was saying the in question here deserves a second chance, and not be in more "heat". The person said they were sorry, and promised not to do it again. Luna, do you believe a person deserves a second chance. If they didnt have a heart,or emotions they wouldnt have made a applogy.Also Luna the "threat" made didnt look like a "real" one; I saw the history on the user page it looks like vandialism rather a threat.Iron Valley (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
About the autoblock
My IP address was recently used by "spartansuit" because my cousin used my computer to make that account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Talking Mac (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Blue0ctane
Just got really pissed off. Hopefully won't happen again. Will (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully not! :) Found the particular edits that seem to have started all this, and they're blocked by now. Can sympathize with the frustration, even if I have to take a somewhat hardline approach to it. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
accidentally deleted that page
restoring that page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessahexter (talk • contribs) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replied to user's talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Shipyears-- what was that?
When I click on his dif's, I get the most amazing image instead. I guess he's done something to the software. Dlohcierekim 03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Combination of some inline css with an HTML table using cells with strategically colored backgrounds; the end result is something like a bitmap image. I've seen most elements of that, before, though not this particular arrangement. Ah, the things we run into! – Luna Santin (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for taking care of related vandalism on my user page. Do you know if there's a fix in the works to prevent abuses like that? - Chardish (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to help, of course. Not personally aware of anything in the works, but I can poke a developer if things keep coming up. Some users apply the same tricks to good effect, so I'd feel a bit conflicted about disabling it altogether. Tough call, anyhow. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Makes you wonder
Do people really think vandalizing m user page affects me at all. By the way thanks. 04:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replied to user's talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Ridernyc protected
Wow, three different IP's attacking one userpage! I semi-protected User:Ridernyc. Dlohcierekim 04:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- you know if the spent this much time and effort improving articles this wouldn't be an issue. Ridernyc (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, all that effort. ;) On the bright side, they've given us a nice list of IPs to check for open proxies. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm gonna watch David Letterman now, 'cause you're running circles around me. <<grin>> Sockwatch? Gotta learn that trick. Oh, BTW, in what way did you increase protection on Ridernyc? I don't think I ever protected a page before. Cheers, and goodnight. Dlohcierekim 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, most of my information was coming from watching Special:Recentchanges with particular areas in mind, and from the filtered feed on IRC. The sockwatch thing is just a bunch of handy templates I threw together at some point, to help deal with situations like this. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
PS, What's a TOR? Can we get rid of the malicious code he added?? Dlohcierekim 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tor (anonymity network). Ridernyc (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is one example of an open proxy network, although of the IPs I checked I don't believe any came up as Tor nodes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Luna,
- Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, i've placed a warning on the IP's talkpage. If it continues i'll request my userpage for protection. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Of course! Feel free to let me know if you have any more problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, i've placed a warning on the IP's talkpage. If it continues i'll request my userpage for protection. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
RickK barnstar
|
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, and protecting it. Harland1 (t/c) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
- Glad to help. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
user: 58.x ban?
Luna, did you ban that user that had the ip 58.XXX.XX they kept spamming your user page. Iron Valley (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I originally blocked them for one hour, and asked them to read up on the biographies of living persons policy before returning; on their return, they immediately reinserted the problematic material and reverted attempts to remove it, so I blocked them again for 24 hours. They are, of course, free to return after the block expires, or to appeal the block. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. :) --Gamer007 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Of course. :) Since that wasn't the first of their problems, I've also blocked that particular user from editing for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Rangeblock collateral damage
This is your range block from a few days ago. This is someone wanting to get out from under it. They seem OK. Your input appreciated. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- (!) I can't believe I accidentally set that indefinite -- it was supposed to be more on the order of maybe 30 minutes. Thanks so much for bringing it to my attention. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
68.84.243.63
68.84.243.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Hi, could you block this editor again (you did a few days ago); see, for example, this. --Jack Merridew 10:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also reported to WP:AIV so this may be history by the time you see this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see it's been blocked. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How to get irrelevant article deleted and user investigated for POV agenda.
I'd like to know how to nominate an article for deletion please, and also how to have action taken against someone who clearly is only present on Wiki to promote a personal POV agenda. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replied to your talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page... I didn't even notice it until now. :-) --Nlu (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh Noes
I'm having Luna withdrawal . :/ KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then you'd better stop me from taking any more road trips! – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did you kill a cheetah?!?! I hope you've seen Road Trip KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Courtesy note
FYI, a diff involving your name was mentioned in passing at an extension request that I filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. --Elonka 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Your protecting Prussian Blue (duo) is appreciated. The req for semi-protection was refused yesterday citeing not enough vandalism ?!?!?! Im glad you can see the truth. Im no fan, but hated seeing it listing every 5th line on my watchlist. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Hey Luna santi how come the indians can write anything they wish on azas kashmir articles and when i try to balance the articles some moderators always protect can you please give me some guidance on how to get some non biased moderators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.208.195 (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- In particular, I see that you do a lot of reverting -- please make use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, instead. I'm protecting these pages to encourage you to make use of talk pages to resolve disputes by reaching consensus by discussion rather than brute force. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Jack Merr*... and Cyric*, too...
Hi. I've noticed that you've dealt with some of these impersonators/harassers and would like to ask your advice on how to deal with this situation. There are many, many socks out there and I've probably not seen them all. There are also endless anons reverting away. I've got a category going to help keep track. This may not be a good idea per WP:DENY…
Also, please see the talk on my talk page started by User:Blow of Light; I've created a 'doppelganger' account as suggested but don't see quite what it's for. BoL will probably get back to me, but another opinion would be welcome. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Usually this is about the time I'd say we should go ask for checkuser aid, but one or more has already had a look, so we may need to tough it out. There's a few measures I'd rather not discuss on-wiki, but for now I plan on keeping a closer eye on DnD articles (they seem to keep hitting those) and anything else they regularly go after. Was planning to take a closer look, tomorrow, as to whether a particular category will do, or if I should create another "sockwatch" page (see other examples at User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch). If they keep up long enough, a massive semi-protection effort may limit disruption... but this doesn't seem to be the sort of situation with any ideal solution. I'll happily revert and block any socks on sight, once they're brought to my attention. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was looking for a checkuser section about this and didn't find it; I'll look again. I've never worked through the process myself. This is mostly D&D related. I'd be willing to say more via email. There is also the likelihood that forums such as 4chan are involved. A lot of folks, admin and not, have been helpful, but this needs to move to a next step. --Jack Merridew 12:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Failing all else, I can check your contribs periodically and run behind you with a cluebat. Any articles which get hit consistently are definitely worth semiprot. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was looking for a checkuser section about this and didn't find it; I'll look again. I've never worked through the process myself. This is mostly D&D related. I'd be willing to say more via email. There is also the likelihood that forums such as 4chan are involved. A lot of folks, admin and not, have been helpful, but this needs to move to a next step. --Jack Merridew 12:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, 46 of the most-hit articles are now under semi-protection; won't fix everything, but let's hope it discourages them a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just looked at your log and saw many that have been problems (for me; the others presumably were someone else's problem). I undid a bit of template removing (by anon) on Faerûn. I expect to see all the D&D articles I worked at cleaning or tagging hit after I'm done for today.
- And, of course, anything I touched that you didn't hit. Thanks, again. Jack Merridew 13:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might smack User:124.181.103.131 right now. --Jack Merridew 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Probably off to bed in the near future, but will try and keep an eye out on the pages you mentioned. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Jack Merridew 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just reverted User:217.166.50.139 who seems to be in Rotterdam. Many of these anons are single edits addresses and are from all corners. This is what leads me to believe that this is on some external forum such as 4chan (which has be pointed-out to me). At this point I'm wondering what it would take to semi the entire D&D universe (more than this, I know). Goodnight, Jack Merridew 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- and User:83.108.68.89 in Norway. --Jack Merridew
- these last two on Abeir-Toril. --Jack Merridew 13:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- and User:83.108.68.89 in Norway. --Jack Merridew
Sorry, but I seem to have brought the Wrath of the Anons down on your talk page. --Jack Merridew 15:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- See [22] re "420chan" which must really be 4chan; also there must be an article arround here on what 420 means. --Jack Merridew 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is unusually coordinated and persistent for a 4chan raid; 420chan is actually a distinct website, although beyond that I don't now much about them. This may look bad, but I've seen worse. :p Better me than you, in any case. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Protected
Hey Luna, I protected your talk page look at the recent activity. I left it at infinite, so unprotect whenever you like. Have a glass of rum for the troubles my good sir. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Blockbuster Inc. edit war
Hi — thanks for helping to cool off the edit war at Blockbuster Inc.. Unfortunately, we're still having problems. I've summarized the issue here. It's a somewhat unusual case, and I was wondering if you could offer some advice as to how best to resolve the dispute. Feezo (Talk) 19:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hm... I could be missing a bit, but I think I see anons participating in ways that don't involve reverting that particular tidbit; while I would prefer that these users discuss their changes, I hesitate to protect the page, due to the risk of locking out other potential contributors. Ultimately, it's a shame more people aren't willing to discuss things. If it were one user making several reverts, it would be easier, but here we have several users making one revert each and disappearing, which is more difficult to deal with. Perhaps they'll lose interest, in time? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Any thought on anon protection? I see the protection log shows you unprotected today, however wasn't it auto un-protected on the 6th? Since the 6th it appears of the 100 edits aprox 50% are anon vandalism [23]. --Hu12 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Awhoops -- fun fact, if you go through the whole protection dialog, fill out an expiry/reason, but forget to click a protection level, the system'll still go throughn with it. The protection had actually expired a day or two prior, so I had intended to semi-protect, and have done so, now. :) Feel free to tinker, if you like. Thanks for pointing that out. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate full protection for the unvandalized forms of Cassandra Clare, The Mortal Instruments Trilogy, and City Of Bones. The author has been the subject of several rather vicious smear campaigns on outside sites like LiveJournal and FandomWank; after I successfully opposed efforts to bring that feud here, a small clique of Wikipedia editors with who I (and many other Wikipedia users) have a long and unpleasant editorial dispute began attacking the Clare-related pages to harass me. There is no real doubt as to notability -- the main book was a March 2007 New York Times best-seller, and has been extensively reviewed -- and the other editors have made no reasoned claims for their deletions. (One article has on overlong plot summary, but that should be easily remedied by someone who has read the book, once the article is allowed to stand. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The comments show that you have protected the article, but somehow, the history shows VivianDarkbloom editing it after the protection was put in place.Kww (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Only semi-protected, which will only lock out anonymous users and new accounts. My current protection is in response to a rather large harassment effort across several articles; I hadn't noticed this dispute, previously. A redirect war seems rather unproductive; probably better to send The Mortal Instruments Trilogy and City of Bones to get a more actionable consensus from a wider sampling of the community -- I see that the former had a previous "no consensus" AfD in August of 2007, but that the article itself seems to have attracted more attention, since then. I can initiate a procedural nomination on both articles, if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
progress
City of Bones has been brought to AFD. Immediate reaction among the group that had been resurrecting it was to turn it into a pretty conventional stub.Kww (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
redirect pages
Hi. I have a question. I made a subpage under my user page that redirects to my contributions so that I could make my signature code shorter (it might look screwed up at the moment until i get it fixed). However, when i go to the redirect page, it doesnt redirect. I don't know what I'm doing wrong or maybe user subpages cant be redirects. Do you know how I can make the redirect work? Thanks in advance. TimmehC 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- If I remember right, it's impossible to redirect to pages in the Special: namespace -- think I ran into that at least once, as well. A soft redirect could still work, even if it's not quite as nifty. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
5dsddddd
Hello. I started an ANI topic on him. You may want to comment. Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
CPI(M) article
Hi. Sorry to bother, but could you have a second look at Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist)? The situation there is has just got worse. A request for intervention from admins has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advice few days ago, but no answer has been given so far. How should we procede? --Soman (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, it's often a problem when somebody is hot-headed enough to cause disruption, but not so much disruption that admins immediately take action. If you haven't already, I'd suggest a request for comment on the user's behavior -- doing so can demonstrate a wider consensus that certain aspects of a situation are widely appreciated or frowned upon, and it's generally a precursor to arbitration. I might make a more proactive response, myself, but I'm not sure if I fully understand the dispute at this point, which makes me hesitate to act. Will see if I can read up on it a bit, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'd say in the dispute there are both issues are more complicated and other that are less. I'd say that the constant insinuations/allegations that Conjoiner and myself would be paid agents are quite simple case of disruptive behaviour. A second issue, which is quite straight on, is the constant misuse of sources, claiming that authors said things they didn't, or using sources that predate the foundation of the party to describe its history & policies. --Soman (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened here and here. Change it back if you lik. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, stranger things have happened. ;) No biggie, just goes to show how obvious the closure was. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The AfD notice was on the page for 16 minutes. I only noticed after the bot let me know it was up for Afd. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Jack's doppelganger
Hi. Please see: User talk:Blow of Light#Hey jack.... I misunderstood what he was suggesting and don't think I need the other account. Unless you think I'm missing something, could you please block the account and delete and protect the user and talk pages?
Thanks, --Jack Merridew 09:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Jack Merridew 08:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Harvey Carter's sock
Please see: 172.207.237.73 who is resurrecting all of Harvey's old edits. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC).
- See it was blocked by Will Beback; thanks for letting me know, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much!
I just now realized someone had vandalized my user page 6 months ago and you were right there to revert it back before I even knew about it. I don't know how you knew it was vandalized but some really hurtful things were said and you just popped in and took care of it. I'm still kinda new when it comes to understanding Wiki's behind-the-scenes action and just want to let you know that you're awesome and I appreciate what you did. Caserini (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to be of service. Generally I figure people shouldn't need to put up with that sort of nonsense, so I try to be pretty quick and quiet about it. Appreciate the message, though, and very glad to see you're still active on the project. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Luna, just wanted to ask you a quick question about your block here. I completely agree that the user was up to no good, but do we really block if they haven't edited in two days? Thanks. GlassCobra 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I might be misreading timestamps, but in their deleted contribs, they created a page at 20:36 Jan 8, and I blocked them at 20:37 Jan 8, I think. Would agree that blocking somebody two days after the fact is unusual, barring maybe sockpuppetry or something of that nature. If you think I've made a mistake, here, feel free to fiddle. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 08:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Someone vandalized my Userspace! 
But a little angel came along and fixed it! 
Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Mysdaao talk 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My friend is back as anons on this and other stuff; could you semi-protect it? --Jack Merridew 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- See this, too: [24] --Jack Merridew —Preceding comment was added at 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dealt with, for now, but I'll be heading offline in the near future, unfortunately. – Luna Santin (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks; I, too, am done soon. I do expect 'em to shift to something else. --Jack Merridew 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dealt with, for now, but I'll be heading offline in the near future, unfortunately. – Luna Santin (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you're still here, see: [25]. not surt if semi on a Afd is appropriate. --Jack Merridew 14:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
New
Here's you a new Emergency Luna shutoff button...
Thief!
That would be me. I borrowed your talk page header layout for my own. I hope you don't mind. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sweet. ;) You're not the first, I don't think. Forget if there's any bits you'll need to modify to refer to users other than me (I think the archive links, but it looks like you got those). Hope you make good use of it! – Luna Santin (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)