This is an archive of past discussions with User:Luna Santin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I just got 3 messages from you regarding edits made in 2007.
Could this be because you wrote those messages 3 years ago to another person, and since my IP changes every once in a while (it just happens randomly), I happened to go onto Wikipedia with that same IP and so Wikipedia gave me those messages?
Btw, my Wikipedia username is Sporlo, but I'm not logged in right now. If you could, please reply to Sporlo.
Hello. I noticed you were the latest user to have activity regarding this template and that you're also a mod. I also left a message in the discussion page for this late last month but it seems it's not being noticed. I was just requesting for a 1912 variant for this template. Perhaps you could help out with that? Thanks. Banana Fingers (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The IP from which I am editing is 82.45.211.161. This was blocked for one week from 21:35 12 March 2010. The administrator stated "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions". Vote (X) for Change, New Calendar and Meletian are all accounts registered to me. I do not need all these accounts - might I suggest that the first two be re - named Meletian so that there is only one account. An SPI was filed this evening, but as stated in my above post I am unable to file my defence because this page is protected. It seems I am being expected to defend these claims with one hand tied behind my back. Are there any other cases on record where accused contributors are not allowed to defend themselves?
Can you please either unprotect or reply to the points above? I could have defended using User:Meletian but an administrator blocked this account while the SPI case was open and it has now been archived. There is no note on the file that the account has been blocked. The blocking administrator commented on his or her talk page at 13:40 16 March 2010 (UTC) "If he would like to create a new account, then any or all old accounts must be abandoned". Can you explain if there is anything I have to do or can you take care of it for me? Thank you. 82.45.211.161 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As recently as the 21st, you were still abusively socking to evade your block -- with repeated and recent policy violations fresh on their minds, I'm not surprised that some admins are unwilling to assume good faith. I'm sure you've heard adages to the effect that trust is difficult to build and easy to lose. If you were engaged in dialog with a specific admin, previously, you might be able to contact them via email. Otherwise, I'd suggest waiting a while before digging your hole much deeper. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look at the original SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change/Archive. A few weeks ago I was overhauling an article with a lot of technical terms (epacts, golden numbers and the like) and another editor helped out. The first account to be blocked was that editor's. I'm pretty certain none of my stuff came from that account, but just to be sure I showed the IP number to the staff at the libraries I use and they all said it wasn't one of theirs.
Then a notice came up on one of the terminals at one of the libraries I'd been using for years talking about block evasion and giving the number which I showed to the staff. I wasn't trying to evade any block - I just started editing in the library and the notice suddenly appeared. Thank you. 212.85.12.219 (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Good morning. I learn something new every day. I thought the Eastern European calendar was named after Milutin Milankovic, the guy who devised it. Turns out it's actually named after Meletios IV, the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople at the time it was introduced. I would therefore like to request that the block on the account User:Meletian be lifted. I have moved the "Former Account" template which I added to User:Meletian to User:Miletian.
I hope it's clear what I am asking to happen. Sorry for the confusion.
In answer to Neutralhomer, Staffordshire Business Innovation Centre is the nethost. The netuser is, as shown on the WHOIS, Waltham Forest Library. Waltham Forest is an area adjacent to Epping Forest, one of the last remaining pieces of untouched land in the country.
Good morning, Luna. I am still being persecuted by User:Jc3s5h who believes that all edits in a specialist field are by the same person. [7] is by myself. [8] is by someone I do not know, have never met and have never communicated with.212.85.12.187 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Good morning again, Luna. A message just appeared on my screen saying there is another SPI and don't bother trying to defend yourself as you won't be able to. As a matter of interest, has any other editor been prosecuted with no right of reply? I did ask this question before. I'll have a look round and see if I can find out what's happening, but I note the message is from the prosecutor, not an administrator. Regards. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Removed information
For privacy reasons Josh Thompson does not want his birth name listed. Therefore, on several occasions several of us have removed the same information only to have it returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Author1128 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a topic that should be discussed there, yeah. For what it's worth, the page protection expired about two days ago, as of this writing. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed that you blocked 92.251.100.89 and 80.85.100.43 as individual IPs. Just wanted to make sure that's right, because I'm used to seeing rangeblocks put in place against Xtinadbest.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
A full answer would require some elaboration on the person or persons behind those IPs, which I'll avoid for the time being; suffice it to say, though, that both IPs have been repeatedly used to violate site policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added a new suspected sock to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backsllash. This new one is actually an abusive creation (in that it was created for the sole purpose of removing a speedy template, thereby forcing an AfD on a clearly non-notable and/or hoax article, Ramakapa). Is it possible to check the new user (Matapula) against the other socks? —ShadowRanger(talk|stalk)14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the CU - yes, it seems that semiprot may well deal with it as it stands. When I logged the CU request the buggers were creating an account as fast as the old one was blocked (so a short-duration rangeblock seemed as if it may become appropriate), and expanding their area of activity, but it seems they became bored before WP did. Thanks for your efforts. TonywaltonTalk00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Luna I grabbed your user name off the functionaries page as a check user - and I need something checked. The user Like the Wind created an article Madison Eagles, which was previously deleted via AfD. I tagged it for speedy delete under G4 as there was only a minor change to the original article - it is substantially the same. But an anonymouse IP - User:96.231.44.244 removed the tag claiming the AfD's issues had been resolved. This IP went out of his way to say he didn't create the article and has nothing to do with Shimmer (a previous issue on a number of now deleted articles). I consider that suspicious and that Like the Wind is trying to undermine due process with speedy deletions. Could you compare the user with the IP and get back to me? If it's a match action should be taken IMHO. !! Justa Punk !!01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Northwestern Business College is still a school and in the same location. The only difference is they changed their name to "Northwestern College". So could we please put the page back up with something that mentions it was formerly known as "Northwestern Business College"?
Ah, looks like the page I deleted was some simple vandalism ("Tim is so dumb" type stuff), and shouldn't be taken as any black mark on the school. Sorry about that. I've added a redirect from Northwestern Business College that should take users to Northwestern College (which is a disambiguation page, currently). Does that work for you? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to look at the article for Adam Keiper, who is the editor of a technology magazine (The New Atlantis), but the article has been deleted. You are the administrator whose name is on the deleted article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Keiper.
Can you tell me why the article was deleted? Also, if an article is deleted, why doesn't Wiki provide the reason on the deleted reference page? Thanks!
Sorry to take so long replying. The deletion summary (like an edit summary) is displayed, but can be a bit buried in the rest of the page. For me it shows in a red box and looks more or less like this:
11:03, September 15, 2006 Luna Santin (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Adam Keiper" (Prod since 9 September 2006)
Looks like this was deleted under proposed deletion, a process which is generally designed to handle "non-controversial" deletions. Unfortunately I was a young and foolish admin at the time I deleted this one, and didn't think to include a more helpful summary. I could email you a copy of the deleted article, if you like. Looks like it didn't include any sourcing, unfortunately, but that can be fixed if you (or someone) is willing to put in the time.
Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify.
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
