Good work on deleting the guy's ravings. He made a point, however, that the ravings to which he was responding have NOT been removed. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Shouldn't they go? Lou Sander (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly? Unfortunately I'm not sure which other ravings are present; this "JAGOFF" he mentioned doesn't seem to show up on the page, and reading the whole thing looking for them isn't quite my cup of tea. :) If you like, feel free to do something or other, yourself, or point it out to me if you'd rather not. – Luna Santin (talk)20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism - Attachment Theory
Dear Luna,
I am in a discussion on the following page and found it had been removed.
The point of this discussion is to get the bottom of the problems on this and other topics;-
I could be missing it, but I don't see where discussion is being removed; could you provide a diff to that effect? Beyond that, I notice the MedCab case doesn't appear to have a mediator, yet. Probably the best thing all of you could do at this point is get more voices involved, either through MedCab or RFC. – Luna Santin (talk)20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have had two 3PO's and a sources noticeboard view but Kingsley does not accept any of their views. There is absolutely no point going to the Psych Project as there is never any response from it. RfC's in obscure areas of psychology like attachment get little or no response. Fainitesbarley21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question that might be best left to the checkusers. :) Our best move ("in the trenches") is an odd combination of WP:RBI and WP:DENY, in my opinion. The more exciting, interesting, or otherwise rewarding we make it for this person to continue, the longer they will do so. – Luna Santin (talk)20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the URL works perfectly. (The agreement you saw would have cleared and shown you the page you were clicking into had you accepted.) Is there some sort of list of all the escape sequences for typing special characters like that? Thanks again, Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to recall the encoding for [ and ] from prior experience, but googling "% encoding" or anything similar might be helpful. The Percent-encoding article links to this online tool which might (hopefully) be helpful, at least for single character lookup if not for a full fix. – Luna Santin (talk)01:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the great work
Luna Santin. Your one of the users with a unique username that i will never forget, i have seen you around for a very long time here and there, its great you still have the motivation and the passion to help the project as time goes on. I have seen a fair bit of users who have given up for a variety of reasons, im not one of them. By the way are you really into the Moon or is it something you came up with. Im sorry, i know this question has probably been asked of you after all your years on wikipedia, im just curious thats all.
Another thing when you first started you stated you dreamt of living in a van by the river eating govt cheese. Very strange indeed, how close is that dream to reality after nearly 2 years? Thanks Roadrunnerz45(talk 2 me)14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there. :) Wikipedia's something I've been able to enjoy, off-and-on, because it's something I can do to connect with some great, intelligent people, learn a bit about large web projects, and hopefully to help a large number of people find information they're looking for. Currently I'm on a wikibreak, but I suspect I'll be dropping back in, before too long. As far as the moon, I think I like the idea of looking up at it, wondering how many other people will be seeing the same thing at any given moment... and it made for a distinctive name. ;) The cheese bit was a reference to an old Saturday Night Live skit I'm rather a fan of (though I suppose I do live near a river, now). – Luna Santin (talk)20:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'm on a bit of a "vacation" from Wikipedia, at the moment; might have more time to look into this at a later time, if it's still needed. – Luna Santin (talk)20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Hello' article vandalisim
This internet IP address (165.21.155.8) is from a ISP and is shared and used by many people.
Apparently the freaking ISP is used by a great many 12-year-old twits. (No offense to any sane 12-year-olds.)
Evidence: Edits to Maplestory... and various other crap.
Not sure if you remember me from the Village pump debate on updating WP:USER to make it explicitly clear that anonymous editors are permitted to remove messages from their own talk pages, however I was one of the (loud, outspoken) folks who started out on the "nay" side but was eventually swayed by your persuasive logic. During that discussion, there was some debate as to the types of things that IPs could not remove from their talk pages. My recollection was that there were three items that anonymous editors were not permitted to remove: sock notices, unblock requests while the block was still active, and IP headers ({{ISP}}, {{SharedIP}}, and {{SharedIPedu}}). However looking at WP:USER, I only see references to the first two items, and nothing on the headers. Refresh my memory ... were the headers excluded by accident or was it intentional? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're posting on time for once (40 minutes early). Todays lecture is by Vassyana (an expert mediator), who will be talking about how to deal with conflicts, whether you are a mediator or not. Hope to see you there! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Media/image merge
I'm a little unsure here, I guess I followed a helpful link someone gave me and ended up at a superceded help desk. I've gone back to check at Help:Contents/Images_and_media and I see links to both of Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk. Should the latter now be shown on that master page as deprecated? The Ichd has had more activity since your change to the merge notice, so maybe the notice needs to be more bigger and more redder? :) Neway, I'll try my current question at Mcq. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I posted a request on Template talk:Songs and was wondering if you could help. Basically the List and Category class are still appearing as unassessed with this template and I was wondering if you could edit the template so these articles would no longer appear unassessed. Any help you can provide is appreciated. OrfenT • C02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and I believe that it's the right thing to do, but others disagree. That's why there was an edit war that led to the page's protection. Utilizing one's sysop bit to continue engaging in said edit war while the page is protected most definitely is not the right thing to do. —David Levy21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late, probably, but wanted to commend you on your handling of this. From what I could see, you were quite fair to both sides of the dispute and managed to be utterly and intelligently persuasive while doing so. I'm impressed. – Luna Santin (talk)08:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at first when he said this I was puzzled because I must of misunderstood what you meant by going to /IP check and after a while the slipped from my mind with all the homework in real life I have to do. Since you bring it up, I assume that you are rather experienced with lesser know aspects of wikipedia, it would be really appriciated if you could help me out. I'm not experienced with Checkuser (as you can see), I mostly only know how to revert, warn, and file an AIV report. Anyway, on the situation at hand, what caught my attention to Devilzhitmen was the following quote in his unblock request (which had obviously been rejected):
if you block my account indefinately i'll just create a new one
As you can see, he is clearly threatening account abuse. He was blocked for vandalism and personal attacks, and an editor has also expressed concern that he is a sock of User:Eddieebo (who has a similar record) although I don't beleive that this has been confirmed. There is the whole story (or at least what I know). What do you beleive would be the proper course of action? Should I file a Checkuser request with a subpage under Eddieebo?--Sunny910910(talk|Contributions|Guest)23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.
Looks like another user left the warning, actually, but someone on this IP did make a rather nasty edit to my talk page, back in January (you might not want to look, if you have sensitive eyes). That said, that was quite some time ago, and it's quite plausible that this IP address is dynamically allocated and someone else was using it at that time; if this other person never checked their messages, then as far as I know the "new messages!" bar would wait around until you came along. :) Nothing much to worry about, I think. Thanks for your time, though. – Luna Santin (talk)16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I don't see much practical difference between that and indefinite, in simple cases, except that indef blocks poison the well against reform. If they're really that determined to vandalize, they could just register another account by then, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk)03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nice job
way to revert my edits on 'teh' you fucking nerd, way to have your priorities straight get a job/girlfriend/gym pass you fucking asshole, maybe work on articles like Ghandi or Spain or something that actually matters FUCKER IF YA GONNA BLOCK ME FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA, DO IT PERMANENTLY
Hi Luna - any suggestions on raising the profile of the Sir/Dame discussion? I already posted at the policy RFC board & village pump. If you know of any other editors that would be willing to consider the issue or if you have further comments it would be appreciated. thanks Ripe (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your own advice
I have Hardyplants on my watchlist, as we have collaborated on some edits, so I noticed your edits to his talk page culminating here. Normally I wouldn't get involved with something like this, but I've seen your attitude before, and I find it quietly destructive to Wikipedia. In short, you are supporting the the view that it is worth discouraging a productive editor who happens to sometimes deal with vandalism in a way you disapprove of, in favor of not discouraging anonymous editors who just might switch from making inane and offensive edits to becoming productive contributors. Although I don't have the numbers to support it, it seems to me that the loss of productive editors is at least as much of a problem as the failure to recruit new ones, and it seems patently obvious to me that it is easier to evaluate the contributions of a contributing editor than the potential contributions of an IP that has so far only defaced articles.
I've watched too many productive editors leave Wikipedia. I almost left myself because of the refusal of admins to block a registered vandalism-only account with numerous edits because it hadn't vandalized for a few hours (I no longer report anything to AIV).
I'll readily acknowledge you have a point. Users in general are a vital resource, both new and old hands. In the event an old hand is willfully pushing newcomers away from the site, however, I find it only proper that someone should have a talk with them -- no doubt you have a similar goal in mind, here. Out of curiosity, where have you seen my "attitude" before? – Luna Santin (talk)21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was unclear: I've seen other longtime users with the same attitude that I've noted in you above. This has been my first encounter with you.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. In retrospect, I should have been more polite, much as you've been here. I noticed David from Downunder mentions on Hardyplant's talk that I have a "ridiculously soft" attitude toward vandalism (not sure if you share that opinion) (I'll add David is welcome to join this thread), but I've always thought my reputation holds I'm pretty active in terms of dealing with and blocking vandals -- see my log including thousands of vandalism blocks, or my contribs which are sometimes difficult to dig through because of all the reverts. Admittedly, I'm not quite as active there as I once was. It could be that we're all reading each other based on our prior interactions with other people, which would be unfortunate. – Luna Santin (talk)00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objection if you or anybody wants to switch up; I've lately started holding back on indefs except with socks or other users who display clear knowledge of Wikipedia and/or seem to be repeat problems, or the like. – Luna Santin (talk)01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking you might have had +sysop at some point. :) Glad to see you're still about, I remember running into you at that SF meetup (I think!). – Luna Santin (talk)10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Luna. I've replied on my own Talk page. No objection to another admin doing his own analysis to see if the block should continue. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirecting links where they belong. Checkout patriot.nu to see how they work themselves. If they work in an undemocratic way, why should I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.99.179 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. They beat up immigrants in the streets, I mess with their page on wikipedia, which they use for propagandistic purposes. Which is worse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.99.179 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I see; the particular user who came in today looks to be blocked, and another administrator has protected the page for two or three more days. Appreciate your keeping me in the loop, though. – Luna Santin (talk)22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ill leave it to you
To block the puppets at The Peter Garrett stuff - bet its all the one dude :( SatuSuro 09:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
But then I have been wrong on the issue - sometimes it might be a pair or three playing but :( SatuSuro09:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They got my attention, yeah. Was hoping it'd become more obvious if I gave it a second, either that they're the same person or a small group in collusion, but for now I guess it can't hurt to play it safe and watch them as individuals. Blocked one of them, so far. – Luna Santin (talk)09:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have such strong memories of your milhist position - it is odd finding you fighting the plain old vndls after those days of having to cope with all the issues of that project - hope you are finding chances to breather after all that :) SatuSuro09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I manage to get around. :) Seems to have slipped my mind quite what issues you're alluding to -- they all blur together, after a while, though. :p – Luna Santin (talk)09:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was probably trying to defend the WP Indonesia project from some balkan enthusiasts for terrorism - but dont let me start - it was a long time ago - and there are many other battles yet to be moved on from :| SatuSuro09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now theres another one - thanks for putting it that way - so you have noticed that too - the editor loss in the odd areas that i work in - is bizarre - i sometimes feel like i am the only editor on some projects sometime :( - - anyways thanks SatuSuro09:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No particular opinion on the site itself, aside from the rather unfortunately shady methods being employed by somebody who wants it linked. If Wikipedians acting in good faith and without a conflict of interest believe it will be useful to improve articles, I suppose that's fine. I'll be checking for links to the site periodically, mainly to see if these socks keep at it; especially if they do, there's a chance the link will become blacklisted (m:Spam blacklist), so you may want to hold off or find viable alternatives if you can. You certainly don't look like one of these socks to me, though, so I'd say you're okay to do whatever. :) – Luna Santin (talk)21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Helena, Alabama "sock spam"
What does the term "sock spam" mean? I noticed you removed a line of marginal at best worth from this article, I'm just interested to know what the term means and how it is used, thanks. Civilengtiger (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you left a leaning delete vote on this AfD before the article was updated with many journal entries, etc. Would you mind revisiting the article and perhaps reconsidering your vote? --Faith (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for the reconsider. I think the AfD jumped the gun in not trying to improve the article first. --Faith (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. :) It's been a pretty good while since I saw one of these, too. So often the only feedback we Wikipedians give each other is negative, it's glad to see people spreading cheer and goodwill. – Luna Santin (talk)06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So long as you maintain that comments like this [2] are acceptable behavior, but the use of the word "unreliable" is not, I think the word "hypocrisy" is appropriate. When you tolerate comments like this [3]in an AFD that you are following, but profess outrage over my comments, I think the term "hypocrisy" is mandatory. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Care to point out where I "maintained" anything about the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Clausen, or where I have professed "outrage" over your comments? It's not so much your use of the word "unreliable" that I find problematic, but your needlessly abrasive and insulting response when questioned about it by a number of confused users who appear to be acting in good faith. – Luna Santin (talk)11:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the levels of bad faith and malice shown in the AN/I discussion and on my talk page before I responded, I find your concern over my supposedly unnecessary abrasiveness misplaced. I seriously doubt the good faith of many of the participants in this dispute (note, for example, that the AN/I thread was initiated by a user who abrasively, insultingly, and gratuitously assumed bad faith because I was not available to respond to his hectoring within a space of a few hours). Given your lack of evenhandedness in this matter, I hardly think it unlikely that your real agenda lies elsewhere. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise, but I find that unikely. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you didn't answer any of my questions. Curious what "real agenda" you think I have, while we're at it. Your allegations might carry more weight with others if you took a few moments to explain or justify them, from time to time, rather than simply repeating yourself or switching to new allegations when questioned. Anyhow, you're either going to continue the problem behavior or not at this point, so the ball is in your court. – Luna Santin (talk)02:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for bringing that to my attention -- thought he might be back. Blocked both IPs, not sure if anything needs semi yet, but will keep an eye out. I've quickly put together User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Pete K, which should help keep track of these articles. – Luna Santin (talk)01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! would you be able to discuss the ban evasion ip sock usage in this case with User:DianaW? This user has some questions that don't seem to have been answered to her satisfaction. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SaddleAdam
It's that freak ClaimJumperPete again. I was trying to file a request for a checkuser, but I wasn't sure as to how. In the meantime, he was still disrupting the site via the sock's talk page. Could you protect it so that the idiot can't keep on with his nonsense? Thanks, Luna. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
203.173.161.113 (talk·contribs) based on the nature of the vandalism I would've endorsed a much longer block (1 month)... Regarding the personal information divulged in the edits, should that be deleted from the history or oversighted? xenocidic (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say oversighted if anything; haven't yet sent in an email, but if you want to (or want me to), not a problem. Feel free to tweak the block as you like, too. – Luna Santin (talk)00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds about right. Shame some people aren't more specific with raving complaints; might actually give us a chance to address them from time to time. – Luna Santin (talk)01:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if you're watching this...
...but User:AvantVenger appears to have posted a response to your request for diffs on his(?) talk page. I did go through the contribs and various talk pages before I blocked him; he seems to have been fine until another editor drew his attention to some controversy over a patent claim, which he took as an attack and pretty much lost it. I feel his his subsequent name-calling was totally unacceptable, and my block was to prevent further disruption, but if you want to tweak it or unblock, feel free ;) EyeSerenetalk11:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thought I replied to this last night, agreeing with you. Seems the situation has continued to deteriorate since then, too... anyhow, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk)12:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to you and several other admins for the block against KillAllSpammers/TeerGrub re: ENom. You archived the request for checkuserpage on 5 June but I just saw it today. There are several other IPs that appear to be the same person. Is it advisable to add them to the list now, or wait and see whether the problem crops up again? Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be able to help. Looking at the page, I don't see any obvious ongoing issue, but should things crop up again, a request here at this talk page, WP:AN/I, WP:SSP, or WP:RFCU might be appropriate (IPs on the 67.150.x.x range are already mentioned as likely being related; other ranges may need a bit more looking into). – Luna Santin (talk)01:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that SteveBaker was also over at WP:WQA posting essentially the same information as in the post on ANI; I've edited out the email address there, but will leave any other action to you, as the first admin on the scene. Risker (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From me too - I thought about doing it, but I'm fairly new to all this and didn't want to give the impression I'm picking on the guy ;) EyeSerenetalk22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asdfghuiop
Actually the free e-mail account that I signed from at Yahoo.com is the reason why I want my account to be deleted. Aside from being free I have forgotten my passwords and could'nt retrieve them and not only that I also wanted to stop using it.--Asdfghuiop (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, and many thanks for reverting the daft comment left by yet another JJonz sockpuppet on my talkpage. The things we deal with eh? Best wishes, Lradrama13:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thankyou also for going round and correcting the damage he/she caused by undoing my edits. Much appreciated. Lradrama13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lradrama 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.
Glad I could help. I had thought that one looked familiar, like somebody I'd run into before, but couldn't recall who they resembled. I'll keep an eye out in case they come back, but feel very free to grab my attention if need be. – Luna Santin (talk)23:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page:-) I appreciate it. How have you been by the way? Long time no see!--SJP (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US Air Force SERE article.
There was no discussion or notification before this article. Would you consider replacing it and discussing changes or seeing if the claim you made was even true, rather than simply deleting the article without reasonable notification? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article as originally created was a blatant copyright violation, which is an on-sight deletion criterion (WP:CSD#G12). If you'd to rewrite the article without copyvio, feel free and you'll have my thanks. – Luna Santin (talk)01:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tough to debate it when you have blanked it. Can I ask who had the copyright? As far as I remember, most of it was taken from a US govt. site, which would not be a copyright violation. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, that is difficult to deal with -- you can't easily review the text, yourself, but you can ask other administrators to have a look, either at deletion review or the village pump. The text was copied from gosere.com; at this point I'm unable to confirm whether the site's material is {{PD-USgov}} but prefer to err on the side of caution until that can be established. – Luna Santin (talk)01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site does claim a copyright, but it is the cadre of the SERE school itself. It is designed for people interested in attending the course or becoming cadre members. It is debateable whether they, as govt. employees, can even hold the material (much of which is directly from govt. sources) as copyrighted. There is case law that disallows federal employees from copyrighting things produced as part of their employment. Even the contact email for the site goes to an official US Air Force email address. In any case, I just feel that the article should have been left in place and perhaps re-written in part, rather than deleted with no notice at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the block extension as well--didn't want to seem bloodthirsty by recommending that as well, but this is clearly not an IP that productive edits get made from. Darkspots (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely accept your comments relating to specific geographical locations. Obviously a reference to summer in New Zealand refers to that period in that country, especially if it about an event which is specifically related to that season. My problem is when it is used in relation to a non-specific location, e.g. we frequently hear about new motion pictures being released 'in the fall'. Given that most films these days are released more or less simultaneously world wide, how do we know when it is happening? (Of course we here in the better half of the world know that 99 times out of a hundred it's the northern fall, but again, it is a less than accurate description.) 203.49.148.66 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. :x Release dates in particular are frequently pretty vague... best I can think of is proposing the use of quarters instead of seasons, although they don't quite line up perfectly and some people might complain about the conversion if source material specifically names a season. If you haven't already, the village pump or talk pages for the manual of style might be good centralized places to get attention (I might start a thread about this to the VP later tonight, if you haven't yet). – Luna Santin (talk)03:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not disagreeing with the block, but don't you think you should make it at least somewhat longer? The IP has a long history of vandalism and I don't think 1 hour is going to do a lot of good... jj137(talk)03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luna, I just blocked for 1 month--the anonymous editor was right back at it after the hour expired. I welcome a review of the block. Dppowell (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awhoops, sorry -- was in the middle of a long edit and didn't reload any pages, so missed both of these messages until now. Hadn't taken a close look at contribs prior to today's, but Dppowell's block makes sense now that I have. Thanks to you both. – Luna Santin (talk)03:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Njection
I dont understand why this article was deleted I read about the company in the NYTimes. I will try to re-post it without it sounding so much like an "advertisement" I guess but I don't see what about it sounded like an ad...
Drewhamilton (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this as gently as possible, I have reason to believe that you have an overriding conflict of interest with regards to this article; it's telling that you returned from a nearly one-month hiatus shortly after it was deleted, replaced the article, and then immediately went back on hiatus, almost as if you'd been prompted to do so, off-site. It's hardly a leap of faith to surmise that (for good or for ill) your only current objective is to get this article posted. At this time I will delete the page and temporarily salt it against recreation. I have no particular objection if an uninvolved user wishes to recreate the article; should anyone wish to do so before the protection expires, they need only contact me. – Luna Santin (talk)00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this. Look at my history please. I post articles about all sorts of things all the time. I've been very busy but am returning to Wikipedia now that life has slowed down again. (My brother had a tic where he was jutting his head out like a Chicken.) I am focused on this article because it got pulled which is upsetting to (I work hard on all of them) and also bizarre as they are obviously extremely notable. Please check my history before accusing me of a conflict of interest. I've have to have to have a personal reason to want to post many topics!! And a personal reason to want to clean up vandalism. This is an unfair and completely irrational accusation.
Drewhamilton (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tokyoredlightdistrict
Hello. It is my belief that tokyoredlightdistrict.com provides useful information on the topic of Japan prostitution. As it is a useful & on topic link, I saw nothing wrong with updating your links. Have a nice day, I won't edit your page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.91.101 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. Since you've stopped adding the link, I assume you understood and (at least more or less) agree with the message I left you. Best of luck with your site, in any case. – Luna Santin (talk)00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, just ran across your Sockwatch subpages, which I think are a pretty cool idea. :) I'm currently dealing with MarkBA (talk·contribs) (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MarkBA), who keeps popping up. I'm debating whether I should create a sockwatch page, or add a list of identifiable behaviors onto his category page. Do you have any guidance here? I'm still coming up to speed on dealing with Wikipedia sockpuppets, so any advice would be appreciated. :) --Elonka00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I created those at some point after having trouble keeping track of a vandal who was hitting almost every page maintained by a particular wikiproject; the centerpiece is User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/X -- the template's located as a subpage so I can call it easily. If you want to use or copy it, feel free. :) I think on some of those subpages, I've added userpages of prominent socks to the listing, both to see if anybody removes relevant tagging and as a guide for others who may want to look into the situation. Most often, I think, the best solution with prolific sockmasters is a combination of checkuser (if possible) and getting more people involved. If somebody keeps at it for a long time, it's sometimes worth listing at Wikipedia:Long term abuse... I admit I tend not to make such listings, but they're sometimes handy if there's a recurring need to get people up to speed quickly. Browsing WP:SSP can be a decent way to learn about these things. I mostly learn as I go, in this area. Finding and identifying socks is usually harder than stopping them, once found, unless they're very persistent. – Luna Santin (talk)00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you remove this page from Wikipedia, as I set it up as a test page to see how the category tag - Category:Proposed deletion - worked, thanks Dreamweaverjack (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, for some reason, Tennis expert seems to find my edits completely unreasonable, even though I am perfectly within my rights to do them, and they do not even radically affect the article anyway. He seems to believe its wrong for me to remove information, but I believe most of what I have deleted is non-notable (Im not sure how much you know about tennis, but if you know quite a lot, wouldnt you agree describing her entire run at a Tier II tournament is completely unnecessary?). He keeps saying I need to wait for consensus from the other editors before putting through what I believe to be a fairly standard edit; for one thing, I thought Wikipedia:Be bold allows me to put through an edit without consensus, and for another, Tennis expert is thus far the only person to register discontent at my edits; the only person to have really chipped into the dispute, Dudesleeper, appears to agree the article needs serious work. I realise vandalism is probably not the right word (I only used that in reference to the fact he had the nerve to call my initial edits vandalism), but I stand by that automatically reverting everything I do to the article is completely unacceptable. He has not even given any proper criticisms of the article, only that it removes information (which, again, Wikipedia:Be bold permits if it improves the article) and I would also like to point out I have attempted to start a discussion about it several times (see the Sharapova discussion page, and his talkpage), and everytime, Tennis expert has responded by either removing my comments or randomly throwing baseless accusations at me.
I can see why you're concerned, but prefer to avoid taking sides at the moment -- for now I'm more interested in getting the two of you talking to each other, rather than past each other, if possible. – Luna Santin (talk)02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've read your posts on my discussion page and then deleted them. Your long history demonstrates, in my opinion, that you are primarily interested in harassing me and being disruptive on the Maria Sharapova article and elsewhere. As I have told you before, I am not interested in debating anything with you on my discussion page because of that history. You are, of course, free to post on article discussion pages to your heart's content - just don't expect to interact with me on mine. Been there, tried that, been burned too often.... Tennis expert (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So rather than talking things over, you'd rather just revert each other into oblivion? I see that you accuse 92.3 of "harassing" you and "being disruptive," but saying either of these things does not make it so. This does not seem to be a viable long-term solution. – Luna Santin (talk)01:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tennis experts post demonstrates how hard it is to find consensus with him, Luna. I also note that in his post, he again referred to his amusingly random accusation of me being a sockpuppet once again. No offence, man, but most people arent going to take you seriously when you start doing things like that with no evidence whatsoever. If youre ever ready to start a proper discussion, feel free. 92.3.158.227 (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully a healthy combination of WP:RBI and semiprot will be able to carry the day. Prefer to avoid rangeblocks, but that depends in part on how persistent our misguided friend is. – Luna Santin (talk)07:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take a different approach. I'd rather rangeblock and get rid of the vandal (assuming there isn't much collateral damage) than have to semiprot all those pages. Protection is supposed to be a last resort, if there's no way to stop the vandalism. In this case, there is a way to stop it: by preventing this misguided individual from editing in the near future. That may prove to be difficult. I anxiously await Alison's answer. Enigmamessage07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both options have their benefits and pitfalls. All the IPs so far have fit on 85.103.0.0/17, 85.107.128.0/17, 85.108.128.0/17, and 88.240.0.0/17, but each of those ranges has only been used once or twice, and there's nothing to say more won't become involved. Rangeblocks do sometimes bring closure to the immediate problem, but are often even more prone to collateral problems than protection is. – Luna Santin (talk)07:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banned user
Thanks for saving my page from vandalism. The user in question has been banned for making legal threats (details here [6]). This is just another of his IP incarnations. So you should go right ahead and block him. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since 13 June, I think. In various incarnations, of course. People have tried to reason with him but he's just abusive. I was going to investigate his claims today but if this is the thanks I get I don't think I'll bother. I've got better things to do than run after rattles which have been thrown out of prams. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those IPs appear to be dynamic, they are making the same edit and are registered to the same company but in different ranges. Someone needs to add the dynamic anon talk header to those. 209.244.31.53 (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation
Luna, I've noticed you seemed quite perturbed by my block of Alextrevelian 006 (talk·contribs) - I have explained my reasons for the block on the ANI thread relating to this. Things seem to have been resolved, but you did seem particularly upset about this; if you would like any further discussion regarding this, my talk page is open. Neıl龱15:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You recently blocked User:80.193.85.83 for one hour, can you please extend that. The IP is on its 11th block and the last one was for 2400 hours. As far as I can tell the IP has never made a constructive edit. -Icewedge (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. On closer inspection, I've opted to block the address for three months (similar in length to the previous block). – Luna Santin (talk)09:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what about [[Category:Blue Ensigns|British Indian Ocean Territory]]? Category:Blue Ensigns does not have a category: British Indian Ocean Territory.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent question. :) When alphabetizing, it may be useful to get the first few letters, but at some point it may get to be silly. I suppose convention is to go with the full title, for the sake of reducing potential confusion. – Luna Santin (talk)08:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Luna. Thank you for your note. Maybe you can help me in this regard. I am a new user and was anxious to contribute in certain topics where I feel I have something to contribute. I have found though almost all my edits, articles and references under constant attack since day one. I have done some clumsy edits at the beginning but I have not used the wiki tools to complain and thwart but it seems there are others who are very good at exploting these features, and even the editors, in silencing contributers whose contributions are not of a certain bend. The very users who have incessantly undone my edits, removed references and pictures I have contributed are also the same ones who have launched complaints against me it turns out. Please look into Sasun and Bitlis articles and you will see what I mean. Van and Erzurum articles are blocked now, only AFTER my edits were removed for example. I could not even place a reference, a new book "Armenian Rebellion at Van", in an article titled "Armenian Resistance (read:rebellion) in Van. Erich Feigl article was targeted for delition by this very user for example, and this is an award winning, world renown producer and author. Where does it end?--Murat (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Luna!
Our little friend Grawp has nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to bounce from IP to IP making a fool of himself. Thanks for blocking that IP. You are one of the good ones. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Luna, What is AN (referenced on my talk page)? Is it Admin Noticeboard? Also, I have updated the talk page for the article in an attempt to stop the "edit war" and clarified my intention on Audemus Defendere's talk page (proper authorities = Wikipedia Admin, not a legal threat). Hopefully the issue is now settled! Best, --Dem1970 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
because wiki will persist in its heavy bais against stormfront .... I am afraid to say im goign to have to consider "wiki" my enemy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.252.4 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Color me naive. I had hoped that the talk page on the article might get people involved, and give us some consensus on the article. Because of that, I didn't mention the inactivity on Dem1970's clear legal threat.
My reward?
Dem1970 has made another legal threat. - "carefully read Irish laws on the subject...and Alabama law as well ..." - "Maybe once you brush up on Irish law, you'll even consider removing certain aspects of your discussion on this talk page."
Cleo123 has swept in and seized control of the article, giving it a far more pro-Windom tack than even Dem1970 did - basing her entire conclusion (and the language and tone of the article) on a 95 word, unsourced, unbylined New York Times "news brief" that does not take into account the later developments I carefully sourced.
What is even more upsetting, Cleo123 posts a Talk comment which is, to understate it, insulting of my integrity, inappropriate in tone, and indicative of minimal research and reasoning skills. It's "cyberstalking" to do an article count after you (Luna) asked about the importance of the topics? Give me a break ...
She says I was "WAY OUT OF LINE" (her emphasis) for "speculating" about Dem1970s identity in talk. (I guess you were, too.) Except I didn't speculate, I noted his self-identification as the source of the pic he uploaded, and the WP:AB issue that raised - or the copyright issue it raised if he's not the subject.
Look at my contributions - they are often political, but not always. Wikipedia once seemed like a worthwhile pastime. If this Cleo person has some sort of administrative power with the Biography Project, it isn't. And if someone with administrative power doesn't step in and bring this back toward the center, it won't be.
You seem decent and reasonable. I'll give you a shot at persuading me it is still worthwhile, but please take it soon, and boldly.
Ah, the irony, this from my "cyberstalking" and "obssessive" accuser. Sorry, Luna, you don't deserve this. But that shot? It now needs to be sooner, and bolder. Audemus Defendere (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how telling Audemus to familiarize himself with the law is in any way a legal threat. I think anyone writing biographies on wikipedia should be aware of national and international law to avoid potential problems. If I were arguably defaming someone, I would want to be informed so as to be armed with the knowledge of how to stay out of trouble in the future (like, to a smaller degree, how people told me to brush up on Wikipedia rules when I jumped in, so as to avoid problems here)! Dem1970 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated use of "legal" language can indeed cause a chilling effect, and has in past situations been interpreted as a legal threat. Obviously you are aware that your counterpart perceives this language as such a threat, and obviously they've gotten your point, so please find another way to phrase the message. Your safest bet to avoid a block under WP:NLT is to limit yourself to the discussion of Wikipedia policies; you and others are of course more than free to pursue all available legal options, but may not edit the wiki while doing so or openly preparing to do so -- in short, you can edit or sue, but not both at once. – Luna Santin (talk)22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luna, I can't sue period. I am not an injured party. I have been pointing out Wikipedia policies but that is clearly not getting anywhere. Audemus just added another long comment on the talk page about the same subject. Honestly, this is getting out of hand. Since I'm new, I have no clue what else to do at this point. Suggestions? Dem1970 (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is running a bit wild, but it's important to remember that "victory" (if that's a good term to use at all, here) is not determined by whoever wrote the most or got the last word in. Consensus is the guiding rule by which content decisions are generally made. In the long run, what the article says a week, a month, or even a year from now is more important than what it says today. That's a bit vague, I know, but I've found the thought helpful in other disputes. If you have objections to the article's current content, make sure you've voiced those objections on the article's talk page, and generally just join in on the discussion when you feel like you can. That'd be my advice, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk)23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support unblock to CHU. I agree that brand new accounts with no GFDL significant contributions should just create a new account but because his account was created in Jan '08, he's got some "time under his belt" so to speak. –xenocidic (talk)00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up on the edit war, I was under the impression that users were not allowed to remove warnings issued to them until a reasonable amount of time had passed. I've left the matter alone, and another user has reported the IP address for blocking. --Dbo789 (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have the right to block my friend Sacome to edit pages. And if you can block people, I should be able to as well. If I already can, please tell me. Also, unblock Sacome. -Corco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corco (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators may block users from editing the wiki, temporarily or indefinitely, as described in our blocking policy. Assuming that Sacome (talk·contribs) is the individual you're talking about, their edits included both vandalism and personal attacks, neither of which is helpful to building an encyclopedia. If Sacome wishes to be unblocked, they're free to get the attention of an uninvolved administrator by requesting unblocking as described on the "you've been blocked" page they'll see when trying to edit. Anyhow, I see that you've been editing more helpfully, so, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk)23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging pages
On page Wikipedia:Lists of basic topics page the following is written:
If you create a basic topics list in article space, be sure to place a {{under construction}} template at the top of it. Otherwise, you run the risk that someone will come along and nominate the list for deletion after you barely get started. For example, the List of basic Canada topics was nominated for deletion at AfD when it only included a few links. Someone had to jump in and develop it fast in order to save it.
A safer approach is to create new basic topics lists in this WikiProject's space, starting the page title with "Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics/Draft/". One must have a compelling reason to delete a draft, since it is by definition under development, and all problems are subject to being discussed on its talk page before it gets moved to article space. There are lists of drafts under development, below.
This is PRECISELY what has happened to me - a bot renamed these articles out of Draft mode (you can see this history - which I accepted) and then this happened. The lists will be extensively added to - but not RIGHT NOW. What do you think Luna Santin? A single page would not be anywhere near sufficient - there are possibly several thousand entries I would like to provide access to alphabetically. Granitethighs (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... a list of such substantial size would probably be very difficult to browse. Either picking out main articles, or topical breakdown of some sort would probably be a good idea. – Luna Santin (talk)01:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have devised these pages to be operated through a template on sustainability Template:TopicTOC-Sustainability. I have already prepared lists on major topics - this is simply one other (very useful) way of searching for info. Once again, this has the potential to be large, like the Geography one.
It would be VERY useful - that is why it is a recommended Wikipedia methodology and, surely, why it should be permitted. I should have taken the warning about page deletion discussed above more seriously. "Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics/Draft/". What can I do? Granitethighs (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but breaking the alphabetical list into 26 pages probably only makes it that much harder to search. Easy enough to split it up again if there are really that many entries. I'm not familiar with any other alphabetical list broken down by letter (some might split into two or three pages, but a full 26 seems a bit much). – Luna Santin (talk)02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I am proposing is demonstrated on page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_basic_geography_topics. There will be fewer articles in Sustainability but the principle is the same. This geography page is treated by other Wikipedians as exemplary: I am not sure why you should resist. What will happen to other people who follow the Wikiproject recommendations regarding basic lists of topics? It would seem that either that page of recommendations should be replaced or reworded or that deletion of similar approach to sustainability be reconsidered. Surely you must see the inconsistency, especially considering the warning about deletion? Granitethighs (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point; one way or another, this should be clarified. Unfortunately, I've got to go for a while, but I'll look into this later. If it turns out I'm in error, I'll be happy to reverse any merges I've yet performed. – Luna Santin (talk)02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
