User talk:Luna Santin/Archive 15

Checking in...
Hi! How are you? 24.160.241.190 02:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpages
You should have incremented the total number of vandalisms to 13 in his userbox. Talmage 04:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Joehazelton is back
This sockpuppet you have banned is back as Willie Peter. He's been able to hoodwink a sympathetic admin, but is up to his old tricks. Propol has tagged him as a Hazelton sockpuppet, and he (true to form) has removed the tag from his page. I'd appreciate your looking into this, as you previously blocked him. His IP is within the series of several Joehazelton socks., and his disruptive edits, combativeness, misspellings, grammatical mistakes, ersatz literary references, and threats are the same as ever. Another Joehazelton parallel: the account, less than one week old, is (to quote you) "displaying a shocking familiarity with Wikipedia policies and norms." Thanks for any help you can provide. Eleemosynary 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to agree, on that; the pattern is very similar, both in terms of their behavior and diction. I've blocked indef, for the time being. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You're the best.  May flights of barnstars sing thee to thy rest. Eleemosynary 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Luna, can you take me through the evidence that led to this block? All I noticed was similarity in misspelling ("grammer").--Chaser - T 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll email you about it, shortly. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. The sock is scrubbing Propol's evidence from his Talk page, which is par for the course.  Can you possibly block him from it? -- Eleemosynary 07:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Emailed away. I think I'll hold off on further action until Chaser has a chance to look things over. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. Looks like he's running to every Kinko's in Texas now.  Would you mind blocking his latest IP?  The diffs say it all.  Thanks. -- Eleemosynary 04:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... blocked. I'll see if I can keep a closer eye on some of this. Perhaps I'll start up another sockwatch page. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidently, drinks were half price tonight. Here's another IP the poor boy's using.  You may want to block it. Eleemosynary 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeida has now made a new Enemy

 * NOW I will tell you something, WIKIPEIDA is full of jackasses. I will now, instead of spending my energies contributing to Wikipedia, I will now spend it by, diminishing it, and by a letter writing campaign to all my local area office holders, as to the evil and abuse found on Wikipedia. The slander, lies and the like, hiding under section 230 of the CDA 1996. I will lobby now, as hard as I can now for change in that law, and the accountability of those that rule this Animal Farm of lies and abuse of process.  Don't underestimate my influence, for I have many friends and  all of them consider Wikipeida a "clear and present danger" to the internet at large.
 * You have now made a very angry and powerful enemy for Wikipeida. 68.75.162.79 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC) on behalf of Willie_Peter.

PS. I am not who you think...

Thats kinda freaky..... and how is he gonna outlaw wikipedia?!?!?!?Yamaka122 ...☑  15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll cross that bridge when we get there, I suppose. Wouldn't recommend holding your breath, for this particular one. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
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 07:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Screen Film Festival
Luna,

Some time ago you took down our posting for Thirdscreenfilmfestival.com. You said that we should not use Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle(we were not intending to do that, just inform). Recently, however, you have allowed a wiki for the TV/Internet show "On the Lot", which is the same principle as our festival. Now, is it Wikipedia's intention to allow high level productions to advertise on their site, only to turn around and call a small (we had over 1 million hits in October), website like ours an advertising ploy? I am failing to see what the difference is.

I would log in, but I think that my account was canceled when our posting was taken down.

Any answers would be greatly appreciated,

Joe Chambers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Unfortunately, I don't recall the article you're referring to; a quick search of my deletions hasn't yet yielded any matches, and I haven't managed to find similar articles in any likely permutations of the article name -- it'll be difficult for me to give you a very complete response without seeing the deletion log of the article in question. In general, though, you seem to be under the misimpression that I make every decision (or even a majority of decisions) relating to Wikipedia's daily operations -- in a website with several thousand accounts registered daily and something on the order of two to three edits per second, I am only one user. Given the nature of your message, I'd encourage you to consider our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest -- where I'm guessing you (or someone you work with) wrote an autobiographical article and popped it into place, you may notice that the On the Lot article is a collaboration over several months (with 139 unique editors since April 2006) regarding a nationally televised show. So, again, you may wish to review Wikipedia's notability and conflict of interest guidelines.


 * If you can get me a link to where the deleted article used to be, I might be able to offer something more specific. Otherwise, if you feel I'm being particularly unreasonable, you're free to request a deletion review. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

how do you
add an image to a page? --Sacksofffifth 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IMAGE will probably do a better job explaining that than I could. :) Other option, of course, check the cheat sheet or see how it's been done on other articles you see. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you've met our dear, dear friend...
Charming, isn't he? I'm not sure if you're familiar with the dossier, but if not, here it is: Long term abuse/SummerThunder. The guy must be off his meds again -- we've had a whole month of silence up to now. He should be mercilessly clubbed with the banning bat when- and wherever he appears. Thanks. --Dynaflow  babble  05:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I was thinking that looked a bit familiar. ;) Thanks, will keep an eye out for any more of the same. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A question
how do you get a page to show up when searched on Google?--TTNJ 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's quite a complicated question. ;) If you're curious about a page on Wikipedia, then it may show up on Google once their web crawler runs another update for en.wikipedia.org; if you're talking about another website, you're getting much further into search engine optimization than I can take you. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

how often does their web crawler update the pages? yeah that is what i mean, like if i type in Albert Einstein on google, it will give me the link to the wikipedia page. I was just wondering if you had to have some sort of arangement or if google automatically shows all pages on wikipedia.--TTNJ 21:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On that, I actually don't know. For a site this large, they probably don't do the whole thing at once, either. I'm thinking I kind've remember hearing something to the effect of weeks between updates, or perhaps months on the high end, but that's really a guess on my part. I'll see if I can maybe get a more definite answer, later, from someone more involved in these sorts of things. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're quick!
Heh, went to mark that "Master decoy" for speedy delete, but it was already gone! Keep up the good work! Dan 21:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. :) Thanks. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, as a completely unrelated side note, woult you be able to take a look at what's going on at List of Death Note manga? There seems to be an edit war, the 3RR has been broken, and I'm just a bit concerned that there should maybe be something done about it.  Just thought I'd bring that to someone's attention.  Dan 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... left a note to two of the involved users, hopefully that covers things, for now. I'll check back in a bit. Let me know if things don't improve. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do, though I also dropped a note on the "Requests for Protection" page. I don't think it'd hurt to have the page protected until July third, that's just my opinion though.  Dan 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'll protect if the edit war gets any worse (I prefer to leave articles open for editing, if I can help it) -- the "wait and see" approach, in other words; if another admin responds to your request differently, I have no objection. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I appreciate you taking your time to look into this.  I'm trying to do my best to help out the project in any way I can.  Thank you for your time.  :3  Dan 23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And thank you for bringing that up for admin attention. :) Checking back in, this morning, and I see Riana's protected the page after the edit war continued. – Luna Santin  (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance
I appreciate your assistance and helpful hints.

Aloha, Chuck Shipman
 * Of course! Let me know if you have any questions; I don't always have answers, but I can frequently at least point you towards the people or places that might. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic Steroids Article
I am completely disturbed by the Anabolic steroid article on wikipedia. It is neither broad in content nor neutral in expression. More specifically, it seems controlled by a single editor who excludes important scholarship on the health risks and serious adverse effects of steroid abuse. This exclusion not only undermines the factual integrity of the article, but also presents a potentially dangerous representation of a serious health concern. I'm not sure exactly where to turn for help, though I have posted it for review under the GA section; is there anything that can be done to remove the 'ownership' this editor has taken over the article and the biased representation of it? Indubitocogito 21:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Indubitocogito
 * Hm, I do see that Wikidudeman has made a large number of edits to both the talk page and the article, so that's probably who you had in mind, I'm guessing? At first glance, it looks like most of his recent reverts at the article itself are cleaning up after simple vandalism, which is pretty common when people put a lot of work into an article -- once they're done making immediate changes, they watch it for the general nonsense Wikipedia articles are inherently vulnerable to. While their replies to you on the talk page clearly indicate someone who's invested a lot of time in the article, they do actually seem quite willing to discuss things with you, in a generally civil manner -- unless I've missed something serious, they don't seem to be attacking you, avoiding debate, or otherwise being disruptive. They do happen to think they're right, but don't we all? ;) If I have missed a more serious issue, do let me know, but my first impression is that the group of you should be able to work out your differences and reach a consensus; if need be, you can make use of our dispute resolution process, including both the mediation cabal and requests for third opinion, as needed. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again
You mentioned your willingness to try to solve some issues between me and User:Yug by having a word with him, and I'm wondering if you're still willing.

Since he was blocked, he has adopted a policy of sarcastic, reactionary commentary regarding me. His latest weirdness is an "invisible" reply (diff) to a comment I placed on his talk page regarding a recent post by him on the Talk:CJK strokes page (diff).

All I'm trying to do is create an encyclopaedia here. As an admin, Yug really should know better than to behave the way he is. I really would just like for him to stick with the policies regarding posts: assume good faith, don't be a dick, stick to discussion of the article, and so on. All this nonsense about "not being allowed to do things" and "amateur knowledge" isn't productive. Exploding Boy 23:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hiding discussion seems a pretty obvious no-go, I've removed the comment tags. Beyond that... I'll check back in, tonight, and see if I've figured out something I might do or say to make myself more useful, with regards to this. I need some time to think, but hopefully whatever I think of will be good. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Exploding Boy 00:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... he hasn't been active, since then. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Luna Santin. I hiden a answer, write by myself, on my own talk page, because it was not complete and need to be complete before to be "public". I currently haven't lot of free time, and do my best to avoid mistakes (Talk:CJK strokes), and to explain my opinions with the few minutes I can find.
 * If you notice a strange behavior from me, please simply ask me.
 * I will have more free time soon (Saturday ? Monday ?), and I will do my best to explain more.
 * Yug (talk)  22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC) [currently moving to an other town]
 * Fair enough. Probably easiest if you just say that, then -- people seeing hidden comments may suspect foul play, or other unusual behavior. It's quite alright to say you'll get back to him when you have more time. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really convenient and not really polite. Exploding boy disallowed me to edit one of "his post", despite the stroked sentence was false (see here). In the other hand, you, you are perfectly allow to edit my own post, on my own talk page, without first asking me explanations. That confusing. I'm I already guilty ?
 * In the same way, EB alarmingly noticing you that "Yug said he plan to revert some changes made by MSJapan", before I did anything, this is it fair ?
 * As French wikipedian, and as French admin, I first know that we should not make biases to get opponent blocked.
 * --Yug (talk)  11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also want notice that I'm interesting by facts, not by beautiful sentences. In example :

"All this nonsense about "not being allowed to do things" and "amateur knowledge" isn't productive. EB, 27 June 2007"
 * If I said that EB haven't the knowledge need to lead these article, it's because I sincerely think it. I already explained why, cited my sources , which EB never matched. This is de facto the core of the trouble, EB recently showed again his will to lead the Stroke order article, not only on spelling check.
 * If I said that to "not being allowed to do things", it's because I made the deal to don't edit the Stroke order article in exchange to English copyediting help, which didn't come, except from EB but...
 * For "isn't productive", I think that hasty reverts are not productive. I also think that the word by word and so endless talk proposed by EB to correct my English, despite my good faith encouragement to make wide and quick corrections (here: 2 hours = one word change), this is de facto unproductive.
 * Words can be beautiful, but I want DE FACTO fair, frank and workable involvement, not nice words.
 * --Yug (talk)  11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary...
I just had to comment on an edit summary of yours that made me laugh... "Kurdistan - resolved?". I wish we could solve all the problems of Kurdistan at AN/I. :) Pinball22 17:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * *laughs* I hadn't even thought of that. Excellent way to start out the day, no? :) That's just about worth a barnstar, right there. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

External LInks Issue at Spylocked
Hello Luna,

I am a registered user at Wikipedia, ES101... I have been posting links and checking on external links at Spylocked page. I have noticed that you have been in conversation with Mike1D who was earlier also being asked to stop spamming at wikipedia on that page.

Now if you see the talk page of spylocked you would see i have given a good explanation of why links to SpywareSignatures.com free removal tools is a good idea and other admins/mod or wiki agreed to it.

Please read this

Hello Otto, respecting Wikipedia's policies here are some points covering your querries with Spylocked Page.

I have been posting links to SpywareSignatures Tool which removes spylocked, THat tool really works well and is even being recommeded by MVPs in the One care and Microsoft Support forums.

Here you might want to see it

http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1426598&SiteID=17

The page from where it is downloaded has more than 15K hits in last couple of months.

Moreover its a popular download on Download.com

http://www.download.com/Free-SpyLocked-Removal-Tool/3000-8022_4-10667426.html?tag=lst-0-1

This software is downloaded over 3000 times since 9th May. ( NOW ITS OVER 6000 ) I would suggest you to download this tool once and test it against spylocked as you did with CounterSpy.

I hope it helps.

Please let me know if the links i posted were SPAM, and i would quit posting.

Best Regards ES101


 * To my opinion it is appropriate to put a link to the tools mentioned above by ES101. I have requested attention for this revert war on Wikiquette_alerts. Otto 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have words with several mods here and explaind them the benifit of the free tool and all have agreed to it. Please let me know if you have any question about the tool.

Also let me tell you one more thing.

Also there is another link added frequestly that takes to xp-vista(dot)com which promotes SpyHunter which is a former rogue antispyware... it would ask you to download spyhunter but to remove anything you would need to pay $$..

Please check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Es101 (talk • contribs).
 * In general, if people want medical, technical, or legal help, they should go to websites which provide such things. Wikipedia does not provide any of those things (see our general disclaimer), and pretending that we can, should, or intend to is both dangerous for our project and more than a little dishonest to people in need of help. We are not experts and should not pose as experts; people needing expert help should find that help elsewhere. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for handling my auto-block problem.--Southern Texas 22:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Seeing as it was my fault, it seems only appropriate. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Checkuser clerking
Yeah, it is slightly confusing. And thanks for the compliment on the picture :P.  Kwsn (Ni!) 01:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request
Luna, I really need help with my checkuser request. I am struggling with how to do this properly. This person (user Qworty, not Geri Litton) is probably the sockpuppeter. He has a mammoth amount of sockpuppets on wikipedia and under Geri Litton's username, has published information about me on the "welfare: financial aid" page which would ONLY be known to him and which constitutes a serious invasion of my privacy. Should this request be a category "G," though? I know Qworty has vandalized under his username (see his history with user Alabamaboy's edits), and I have a list of his known and suspected socks. How do I put this on the checkuser request? Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountainwriter (talk • contribs).
 * In general, the rationale provided for a check is probably more important than the particular code letter provided -- if we are splitting hairs over code letters, or can't pick one, it's fine to go with G (the "general case" letter). As far as a list of sockpuppets, if you direct me to this list, I can look into adding it to the request for you. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Mysterious Note
Please provide an explanation for your edits. See how to use a talk page. Thanks! – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Which edits? See how to use a talk page. Cheers! 70.23.164.215 03:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied to your talk. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Just stopped by to say thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! -- RattleMan 21:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for continuing to monitor my page for vandals. This recent hike in vandalism entirely confuses me; I don't have any enemies. -- RattleMan 03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Camilo Pombo
Hello Luna Satin,

I was “Googling” Camilo Pombo and found this again:

“User talk:Luna Santin/Archive 27 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The profile for Camilo Pombo should be investigated because he is a criminal that is not being portayed as the real person that he is...”

Can you please explain to me why Google keeps this in, and not the one I sent you a couple of weeks ago? I don't really want to think that you are helping anyone that wants to hurt this guy, or any one else... are you?

Thank you,

Pretty Pettite
 * You'd have to ask Google about that; I haven't even thought of this since the message you mention, that I can recall. Perhaps my talk archives have a high pagerank? Not sure if there's much I can do about that. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My Apologizes
I apologize for allowing my opinions to get in the way while editing the September 11 "day of the year" page. I actually do stay fairly neutral, but for some reason, I "strayed" on this one...that is on me. For that, I am sorry. If you like, I will remove the posts in question or just strike them from the record.

Again, my apologizes and I will work so that it doesn't happen in the future. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 05:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, if anything, I'm a little surprised I'm not more passionate about this. :) I know you were (and are!) acting in good faith, and that means a lot, at least to me. Your self-awareness and restraint is impressive, I'd say. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Maybe I should now report myself as a sockpuppet of myself? :o) Nah...I think I have been in enough trouble already for one week, and it is only Monday...thank you... --Zeraeph 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got all week to figure out how you'll turn yourself in, eh? ;) I'll be running off to class in a few minutes, here, but if you run into any more problems, I (or another) admin should check back before too long. – Luna Santin  (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're good!
I was in the process of reporting User:Tar concr at ANI when I noticed you had already taken appropriate steps. Thanks very much for such timely action : ) Doc  Tropics  17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. :) Thanks. – Luna Santin  (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. That was the second time by the same IP. (Duane543 00:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Of course. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
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 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Joseph Rose
Hi Luna, why was the Joseph Rose page deleted? Was it unscholarly or something? I never actually saw it; Rose was a fairly influential 18th Century artisan and collaborated with Robert Adam, is he considered not important? If another page were added would it also be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hippokrates (talk • contribs).
 * Nope, the article I deleted referred to a present-day artist in the Philadelphia area; sounds like we're looking at different people. I should have used a more descriptive deletion summary (I was a pretty new admin, at the time I deleted that particular page). If you'd like to create a new article there, feel very free. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Luna's Day!

 * Happy Luna's Day, Luna! :) Hope ya have a good day. - NeutralHomer  T:C 00:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Have a peachy day :) Grace notes T § 00:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent: I am glad today is your day, Luna Santin! :) Acalamari 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wahoo! It's Luna-San's day!  :D  Have an excellent day, Luna.  --Iamunknown 00:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah! That's pretty cool. Think I noticed Gurch was up for this, not too long ago, and he said I might be, so I guess he really wasn't kidding. XD Well, ah, I don't think I'm very good at taking compliments gracefully, but thank you for the recognition, and for spreading good spirits in the community. :D – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why Phaedriel didn't put this as the image?

***Miranda scratches head. ***Miranda bites Luna-San. ***Miranda scratches head again.  Mi r a n da  04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With the one earring, that guy is so stylin' – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, well done! I was just dropping by to say a friendly thanks for taking care of the U2 IP vandal. (Pity he got one more in before you took care of him!) Happy Luna Day! (Which would technically make it Moon day ... or Monday ... and I Don't Like Mondays ... bah!) Confusing Manifestation 07:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for catching that one. I must be getting slow with all this celebratory cake. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oho, thanks! :) Keep up the good work, yourself, we need all the help we can get, I think. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

those notability templates...
Were added by a single user (TTN) at the rate of 13 a minute. Removing them as indiscriminately as they were added shouldn't be a blockable offense, if you ask me. -N 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more the complete failure to respond to any talk page messages that concerns me; the user's emailed me, I'll see what they have to say. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. User's unblocked. As I mentioned on their talk page, I'd be happy to, er, re-revert myself if I see some discussion suggesting I should (anywhere is fine, village pump, admin noticeboard, talk, user talk, wikiproject, wherever you like); if you'd rather just go at it, I'll try and stay out of your way. Apologies for the fuss. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's not a battle I want to get into. I would have removed the templates myself had I not wanted to get into an edit war. In fact, the major irritation was the template itself, which was deleted and redirected at tfd, so I'm not unhappy about it. The user should have engaged dialogue, you're right. You're not in my way at all. I was just giving unsolicited 2 pence. -N 07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And (just to cover my ass) please note I am not sticking up for this user, merely pointing out that a LOT of people wanted to do the exact same thing. If for some reason he turns out to be a vandal I don't want to be blamed :P -N 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I wouldn't hold it against you, either way. :p Appreciate your concerns, all of them, though. Thanks. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: userbox
Not at all! I was the one who'd originally proposed the user category for deletion, and it was through my userbox that I actually noticed it. (: Oc t ane  [ improve me ] 04.07.07 1853 (UTC)
 * Aha. :) Well, thanks, then. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: user:Yug
Hi. I don't know whether you even still want to be involved, but I'm becoming very frustrated by this user's ongoing issues with me.

I've responded to Yug's long list of accusations about me on his talk page. I haven't edited any of the Stroke order-related articles for several weeks. I've generally stayed away from Yug. Yet he continues to maintain a long page all about me with a link to the Arbitration Committee at the top that contains stuff that's more or less ancient history (including a link to a post some other user made about me in 2005 -- a user who was known for his tendentious style of discussion and who hasn't even edited Wikipedia at all for 19 months now), and a look at Yug's contribution history suggests that most of his energy over the last couple of weeks has been devoted to me.

The latest round of accusations seem to have been brought on by my suggestion that two closely related articles, Stroke order and Stroke (CJK character), be merged -- a proposal mind you, not an actual merge. There was almost no discussion of the merge, though it should be noted that there was at least one other support for the proposal.

What I would like at this point is for Yug to delete the page User:Yug/EB, to get back to work editing, and to stop devoting so much time to complaining about me and gathering "evidence" about me for whatever obscure reason. Given that I haven't made any edits at all to the relevant articles for several weeks (and no substantial edits for even longer than that), I can't understand this ongoing issue. Exploding Boy 22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop to biases summaries of the pages. I want facts. I want you show me that you have more knowledge than me on the subject, or that you admit that you haven't. Your merging proposal is an other misunderstanding of both Stroke order and CJK strokes, and yes, I say it again : an user who proved several time having uncomplete knowledge on an issue should not undo more expert-user work.


 * Prove me that you have more knowledge than me, or withdraw.


 * Last thing : instead of moving again the talk to an other place, read my claims, truly. --Yug (talk)  22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To Yug: Expertise is not a prerequisite of editing, and never has been. You're free to oppose EB's merge proposal, but I don't see how you can claim it was made in bad faith. It's not clear to me how EB's summary of events is biased. If you might just, y'know, play nice and such for awhile, he might even be willing to work with you. Simply insisting on having your way (and keeping infantile evidence pages on anyone who disagrees) is rarely the way to go. Perhaps your knowledge of English does not allow you to display more finesse; if so, that is unfortunate, but I don't know if I'm ready to accept it as an excuse. This soap opera has gone on far too long. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I never claimed he made it in bad faith. Expertise is not a prerequisite, that's right, but if EB want make content change, undoing what I did, he have to explain why, and show that he have more knowledge on this issue, or withdraw.


 * I accepted the fact that my English is not good, can EB accept to show is knowledge or to withdraw. --Yug (talk)  09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That, you'd have to take up with EB. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Withdraw"? Any person can edit any article on Wikipedia; expertise is not a prerequisite, only factual accuracy and verifiability. In addition, I've never used claims of expertise in regards to my edits: I've never once made reference to my credentials in support of changes I've made or proposed to any article. I don't understand Yug's problem, really. Instead of getting on with editing, he's rehashing and rehashing issues he's blown out of all proportion regarding articles I haven't even touched for weeks.

Indeed, it's ironic that Yug claims that I'm trying to "own" certain articles, when he's made it abundantly clear that he's trying to do exactly that. This is really just an extended temper tantrum that I strongly advise Yug to get under control. I've done all I can to diffuse the situation: I've stayed away from Yug. I've stopped editing the articles in question. Yug's behaviour is akin to stalking, and it's becoming harassment. Exploding Boy 16:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All the trouble is that we both aim to "control" this article. These 6 months shown me that I haven't the English need to do so, and that you haven't the knowledge need to do so (you wrote or never corrected : "characters were first carved" ; the never-seen-otherwhere rules about 上 ; set the Japanese order as the world wide rules; now putting the Main-China rules as universal ; "some are the characters 廴，癶，禸，辶，阝" ; the current point 3 which is not a rules but an exception from Cursive ; and the current point 7 which is a misunderstanding of the previous rules and of CJK characters ; keep the uncomplete Unicode 16 CJK stroke set ; image [[Image:馬-kaishu.svg|23px]] should have 10 strokes not 9 ; image [[Image:8 strokes of 永.png|23px]] have one simplification ; the 3 national schools of stroke order is also a simplification).
 * I'm now astonished by your recent misleading content change proposal (a merge), which with almost no explanation plan to undo an (my) already fully explained split (see talk).
 * I totally stopped to add bad English into this article, right ? Can you stop to make or propose misleading de facto revert ?
 * --Yug (talk)  18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This, actually, ask you to show your knowledge, to explain fully, or to withdraw. --Yug  (talk)  18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I have no need to control that or any other article. And I have no idea what "recent misleading content change proposal" you're talking about. Frankly, I'm beginning to think you're a little crazy, and will no longer be responding to you on this subject. Discuss my edits if I make any. Otherwise, leave me alone. Exploding Boy 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Umh... this is the core of the trouble : you are proposing to undo an already explain question (see talk) --Yug (talk)  20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be making a mountain out of a mole hill, as they saying goes. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lions And Tigers And Entertainment, Oh My!
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Apparently the guy is upset I tagged his favorite non-notable band for deletion. Thanks again. :) -WarthogDemon 15:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict interests
Yes, you were right, I was blocked unfair by miika. It was a true case of interest conflict.--Tones benefit 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
I've sent one. It's to do with an issue you're familiar with. :) Acalamari 01:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. Replied via email. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied back. :) Acalamari 01:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimjet89
I've had to block him for two weeks. He ignored my message and simply uploaded more images without any status. Acalamari 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's what he did, before, too, I think? Definitely a sock, then. :p Good catch. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If he follows his pattern, he'll either abandon that account and start a new one to do the same thing, or he'll just come back after the block and keep uploading; and in both cases, he just get blocked again, unless he actually tags and sources the images. Thanks for the help. Acalamari 20:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Munich
This is not correct. I just revised articles I once wrote. Do u really think it is a good idea to keep some statements on Munich's lifestyle under the headline "architecture" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * I was more concerned that someone had removed three sections without providing a reason -- it's a common behavior for vandals. Since I'm more assured you're acting in good faith, I'll try and stay out of your way. :) Thanks for replying. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Many thanks for the swift revert on my user page --Stephen Burnett 10:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. :) Glad to be of any help. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, Luna. Since you got dragged into this mess, you may be interested in. Exploding Boy 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for deleted revision of image description page
Hey Luna, Image:Rhodesia dak3.jpg was deleted 14 days after I listed it at WP:PUI (per standard procedure). I'd like to quote the image description page in an RFAR. Could you copy the revision of the image description page after I edited it and paste it into my sandbox? If not, let me know (and the reason too, plz). Thanks, Iamunknown 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Iamunknown 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Artemisse
Since you have indef-blocked all the sockpuppets of, you should indef-block him as well. Currently he has a 3 hour block, but that was before you found the socks. Keep up the excellent work! Shalom Hello 00:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another smelly sock
needs to be indef blocked per Suspected sock puppets/208.68.114.47. Thank you again. Shalom Hello 00:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Open Proxies
I have noticed that you blocked a ton of IP addresses that you assume where open proxies. I don't understand how they can be open proxies if they haven't started editing yet by looking at there contributions. How do you know? King Lopez  <font color=#FF0000>Contribs 07:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be able to tell you if any of those had been used, without assistance from a checkuser, but tonight's set was pulled off of a forum dedicated to helping people find (and use) open proxies -- sometimes for anonymity, other times to circumvent bans and blocks. As far as general information and policy on open proxies, see open proxy. Currently, my sandbox lists all of the IPs I blocked tonight (permalink). If you click the "RBLS" link next to each IP, it'll take you to a real-time blackhole list, which culls data from a large number of sites dedicated to tracking open proxies and other potential sources of abuse; I've checked for myself, but should you notice that any of these IPs is no longer blacklisted by those lists, or that I've otherwise blocked an IP in error, do let me know. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block of 82.204.47.120
I reported 82.204.47.120 for vandalism, and I see you have blocked him. After looking over Interracial pornography's talk page and reading the article itself, I think his removals might have been legitimate and not against the semi-consensus already expressed. Perhaps you would consider unblocking him. Talmage 05:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, did you? I didn't notice, heh. I actually came across this through an unblock request for, and while I was looking around, showed up and started looking an awful lot like a block/3rr-evading sockpuppet, thus the block. I'm not sure who they are, but it seems improbable that a "new" user would just happen to stumble in and start reverting, mid-argument. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, maybe it would help to clear things up if you posted a block template on his talk page. Talmage 05:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
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 07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * Oooh, thanks. :) I got poked about maybe adding to it, and although I felt a bit like I was intruding in somebody's userspace, Ral didn't think you'd mind too much. I've always enjoyed the Signpost, so the chance to contribute was satisfying. Cheers! – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow
That was by far the ugliest vandalization I've ever seen. This makes the main page article vandalism look like an endangered species. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody in an unblock request the other day said something to the effect of "the inmates have taken over the asylum." Perhaps we should show them this one? :p – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More like "the inmates have taken over the asylum and they have tranquilizer guns loaded with liquid prozac." -WarthogDemon 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block of User:66.141.22.99
Hi Luna. In fact this IP is a sock of this indef blocked account. She just came back again hitting the same articles as usual. I am not sure how to stop this dynamic IP from disrupting. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  06:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye out, or try to. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New Joehazelton/WilliePeter sock to block
Hi, Luna. An IP check has confirmed that  is a sock of, who as we all know, is a sock of. Ah... the transitive property.

Would you mind blocking the account? Thanks. --Eleemosynary 08:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To the punch
You've beat me to the punch on a lot of anti-vandal work tonite, so I wanted to say... thanks!! Keep it up!! -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 09:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I figure it's good that I can make myself useful for something. :) Keep up the good work, yourself, too. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

your block of 82.110.222.242
You beat me to the block. But I noticed that you blocked for 31 hours. In a case like this, where the IP is shared and there are good edits from the IP and the vandal has only been active a short while, then perhaps we should try a shorter block of say 3 hours? Just something to think about. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I sometimes do, although in this particular case it looks like the edits from yesterday were also rather unsavory -- hard to say if it's the same person. If you'd prefer to reblock with a shorter duration, I have no objection. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad: Unfair edit summary
Yes but those arguments have no conclusion. Hence the picture is not there because everyone agree it to be there or there is concensus. He has right to delete that disputed picture, just like someone else has right to add one. --- A. L. M. 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think he's read the discussion? Do you think he's even aware there is a discussion? This is the person's very first edit, somehow I doubt they've read up on things. Yes, I welcome the edits of new users (notice I welcomed the user), but if they're going to leap into some of the most contested disputes on the wiki, I'd really prefer they figure out how to use talk pages quickly. ;) – Luna Santin  (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

block of Mtzanthony
What do you think of the final comment that was added? Obviously it's no excuse to make your account available to a vandal, but I'm curious about what exactly the policy is on a situation like this, I'd like to be a more educated wikipedian :) -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, from watching unblock requests for awhile, now, I can tell you that "my brother did it" (etc) is the #1 excuse, by a huge margin. :p Most of the time it's complete bollocks, but occassionally it is actually true, of course. By checking things like registration logs, account contributions, and comparing prior and current behavior and language, looking for old edits that may or may not have been vandalistic, we can sometimes get a feel for things. The most important factors for me are how well their story does (or doesn't) add up, and probably how much I believe that unblocking them will or won't save us a good contributor or free a troll. This particular case is a bit of a tricky call, since the account existed for several days before it really started vandalizing. Its first edit (the only old one) wasn't "good," but it might have just been innocent testing. I'll drop them a note and see how they reply, I guess. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the lesson friend -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat

The vandal
Thanks for blocking them; I was about to do it when I saw that you'd done it for me. Sigh...no idea where that vandal came from; probably a user I blocked when they were using another account or IP. Acalamari 01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Mtzanthony
Hey! I unblocked him, thanks for letting me know :). For the future, if you're fairly sure about an unblock, just unblock and drop me a note, I don't feel possessive about blocks ;). I hope his "brother" will stay away from the computer. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 09:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial moves
Normally I would request such moves at WP:RM, but could you simply move Dracula (disambiguation) to Dracula and Kankuro (disambiguation) to Kankuro? Both redirect to their disambiguation pages respectfully and I don't think such moves are major enough to request. You could say the reason to do this is "superfluous title". Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru

RE: unblock request
Feel free to unblock or reduce the block to a week (as suggested by the user himself). I considered adding second chance myself since the editor has yet to show any real positive contributions... Admitting that their contributions were silly and apologizing is kind of a nice change from your average unblock request, ain't it? Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 22:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied to user's talk. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnaster!

 * Well, thanks. :) It's all a collaborative effort, thanks for the effort I see you've put in, as well! – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I was an admin, like you, then I wouldn't use popups and use the rollback vandal button, like how you always have an edit summary when reverting "reverted edits by vandal to last version by contributor". Also rather than losing all your barnasters that you've received so far, you should create an awards page and put 'em all in there, like everybody else who received a barnaster.--Willy, your mate 02:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation/doppelganger advice
Hi. I noticed you're listed at Changing_username/Assistance and seem to be fairly active, so I wonder if you could give advice. I'm User:AnonEMouse, a reasonably experienced and somewhat active administrator, and have, to my surprise, noticed the existence of User:AnonEMousse, who actually predates my account, but has no edits. I don't know much about Doppelganger accounts and Usurpation but hope you do. Would you advise I ask for an usurpation and to make that a doppelganger, to avoid any potential for confusion or not? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I used to be lots more active, at WP:CHU/U, yeah -- not so much, now, but I don't imagine too much has changed. IIRC, the bcrats prefer to use usurpation for cases where the main account is being renamed, but you might be able to talk them into making an exception. Never hurts to ask, I figure. On the other hand, if it hasn't been used since 2005, it's probably not much of a concern, either way, I suppose. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. No, if it isn't usually done and it's something I'll have to argue for, I don't want to do it, it's not high on my list of priorities ... and, frankly, if AnonEMousse comes back and starts making useful edits, so much the better! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Southern Texas
This is an odd one. The only IPs this editor (who you unblocked recently) has used are otherwise all full of sockpuppets of William Henry Harrison (he lists most of them on his talk page). There have been gaps as small as 15 minutes, on numerous occasions, between Southern Texas and various of the socks, on one IP. And another IP is even more dramatic. Take a look at the series of anonymous edits to Bianca Beauchamp, starting here. In between the edits at 0:08 and 0:13 comes this edit, from the same IP.

"Harrison" has yanked us before, and might well be continuing to. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's a tricky one... as I recall, I blocked the IP address because it was obviously being used for evasion, even if I wasn't sure who was behind it; however, somebody (Southern Texas) with a contribution history showed up to request unblocking, so I switched to anon-only with a freeze on account creation. Given the evidence you've discovered (in particular, multiple IP matches and the short time lags), it appears pretty likely that Southern Texas may be another sockpuppet. I see the both of them tend to show interest in the same sorts of political and wrestling issues. Is there a reason you haven't blocked the IP addresses involved? – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Curiosity to see what happens next, mostly. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like The Most Dangerous Game. ;) – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
You've listed four socks that I've seen, but I can list more. Is it allowed to add to the list you've composed? Acalamari 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. :) I just listed the ones I found inside a few seconds, if you can add more, feel free. With prolific sockpuppeteers such as this one, it's probably best to list those that have been active in the past few days or so, if that helps any. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, give me a few minutes to get them all. I'll list them. Thanks. Acalamari 22:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Nine more. Acalamari 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dracula
Hi. Back at Uncontroversial moves, I asked for two simple moves and noticed that Dracula was redirected to the novel by Reginmund and the Kankuro case remained unsolved. Which is a more popular search for "Dracula": the story or the character? A google test suggests the character. And of the remaining, Kankuro? Lord Sesshomaru


 * Dracula...is a story? hbdragon88 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. Who actually refers of the novel when thinking of the name "Dracula"? Most people hear of him as a monster in a cartoon or movie. Lord Sesshomaru


 * Oops, missed that thread. x.x Well, if people can't reach some sort of agreement, I might recommend redirecting to disambig, instead. I've always figured our goal in this regard is to get the reader to what they're looking for as fast as possible -- it's hard enough for us to know whether they want "Dracula the character" or "Dracula the story" without asking which of the numerous novelizations and film adaptations is the one they happen to be looking for. Presumably the character and original novelization would be the most important; perhaps we could use a link at the top, "For the character Count Dracula, see (link), for other uses, see (disambiguation link)," or something like it? Just brainstorming, here. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edwin rose
isn't getting it - he just created his user page again and has contributed nil to the encyclopedia. Similar situation erupted with, Ryulong indefblcoked user. Same here, or should we warn him again and block the next time? hbdragon88 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm gonna go ahead and block, since they haven't even responded to any of the messages they've been left. We'll see how that goes, I guess. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rob right and continued reverts
Hello Luna Santin,

You left some comments here about User:Rob right's apparent use as a single purpose sockpuppet account, and abuse of vandalism warnings. I wasn't aware of that incident report, and actually raised my concerns here, where I outline why I now believe him to be a disruptive/bad faith/POV editor, with little chance of changing his ways.

I've repeated called for discussions and suggested compromises to a content dispute, and remained dignified and polite with this user (in his several guises). However, following your suspension, he's editting as an IP (User:79.73.36.212) and just not acknowledging the consensus against him and calls for debate.

Per the reasons I outline at the link I've provided above, I think there's little hope of assuming good faith here, as his desire to promote his point of view is focussed and is spread to other webspaces. Can you advise on how to best tackle this, as I'd like to do this by the book. Sorry for the inconveinence, Jza84 00:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm... I'll dig around, in a bit. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * can you see this disruptive diff off links to nonsense [links to every newsagency] from [Sock of Rob right] The IP is dynamic and changes everyday but please a 3 hour on User:212.139.246.24 he wasted my 30 minutes going through those articles in case he was correct. Mik e 33 -  t @ lk  19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the wait, but it looks like they've stopped, by now. At least for the time being. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thank you for the welcome. I don't plan on doing any editing, just looking for pics and information for my projects at work. I feel uncomfortable editing someone else's work when I am sure they have done quite a bit to put down that information. Again, thank you for the nice welcome. --Tigerlilly 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Wikililogirl
 * Of course. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

86.69.230.10
Hi, (sorry i speak badly english) For that, sorry but you are mistaken, it's false : Iam from french wiki and i particulary contribuate to algerian articles, and when i see Miriam83's vandalism on Algeria and Kabylie' pages in this wiki, i reverted his modifications. But iam not Miriam83, see my others contributions. My IP is always : 89.69.230.***. Cordially 86.69.230.10 08:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ack, my mistake. ;) Thanks for the help! – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * np, I'm happy that you understand my english :-] .86.69.230.10 09:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Astrale01
This apparently legitimate user was autoblocked when I blocked User:Thy true power. The connection is apparently User talk:24.4.25.168, an IP you described as non-dynamic and non-shared. I'm not well-versed enough in the ways of IP's to determine if this means that User:Astrale01 is abusing socks, or that the IP is in fact, a shared one. Would love your input before I take any action on his unblock request. Cheers Dina 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's a tricky one. I've seen a few cases where a small army of socks consistently manages to avoid autoblocks by having one "good" face... but the more common scenario is just collateral damage. Judging solely from the IP's contributions, it really doesn't seem likely there's more than one or two people behind it (this isn't a perfect check, it includes only edits from logged-out users, but if you ever see a school or university's IP contribs, you can immediately see the difference). Very curious, but the IP has left messages on Astrale01's talk page on two occassions. If you check the history on Astrale01's talk page, their autoblock problem is far from being a new one -- they've requested help with autoblocks on numerous occassions in the past few months, indicating a large number of abusive accounts on what seems to be a very narrowly shared IP address (if it is shared at all). That said, while there is some cause for suspicion, Astrale01 has contributed to the project, and I'd hate to lose a good editor. Perhaps it's time to softblock the IP address for a longer period, perhaps several months. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second thought, I've realized it's a little odd that Astrale01 comes back from a 7-day hiatus just three minutes after a vandal hits. My ability to AGF just jumped off a cliff. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if I softblock that IP, even it is him, he can't create new accounts. Right? It is a bit odd actually. Dina 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. My suspicions were somewhat aroused by the events (one of the auto-blocks was for a school IP, which makes sense, but the other one doesn't seem to be a school I don't think.) and a recent burn on my good faith instincts.  However, the user in question has only good contribs.  So I believe the steps I take are to unblock the user I originally blocked and then reblock them with autoblocking disabled?  That sounds right, so I'll try it and see.  Cheers Dina 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Autoblocks are a little tricky. They attach to the IP address(es) most recently used by a blocked account, and they're difficult to search, except using the autoblock search tool (linked in unblock-auto), where you can search by blocking admin and/or original blockee (in this case, Thy true power). Intuitively, unblocking TTP would release the autoblock on 24.4.25.168, but I don't believe it does. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I did it correctly -- the autoblock IP was on the user's unblock request, which linked to the blocked IP. It seems your original softblock on that IP has expired.  If I go ahead and softblock it again, it shouldn't affect this particular user, correct?  Dina 18:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I softblocked that IP for one week. And will keep an eye.  Sometimes Wikipedia makes me paranoid.  I recently realized that I had a civil conversation with one sock about whether or not to WP:DENY several of his other sock accounts. grrrrrr ;) Dina 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, we'll see how that goes. :) Thanks for keeping me posted. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for helping with the sockpuppets of Nate1506 (was that the right number?). I appreciate any efforts to stop this guy disease. He vandalized my user page and talk page relentlessly the other night and I was beginning to cry. THANK YOU!! Savie Kumara 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Shame they stopped using the NateXXXX usernames, they must have noticed we were blocking them awful quick. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

BillyTFried
Yup, I'm fine with that. I suspect he'll think I'm evil regardless... but he won't be the first or last there.--Isotope23 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied to your talk. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are satisfied by the user's response and based on that I have unblocked him. In the future, if you think any decision of mine be reversed, but I dont seem to be online, please go ahead and do it. I wont take offense. :) I would appreciate a note though. Cheers. --soum talk 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice meeting you too :) --soum talk 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi
My aiv didn't sign. Do you know why or can you fix it? Thanks. When I report someone to AIV can I give them that message? A link to which I tried is here. Thanks and could you respond on my talk page? Thanks again! SLSB  talk 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied to your talk. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Bombaplena
Hey :) You dealt with this user for an unblock request before, and you told him to wait a few days before reconsidering asking an unblock. That time arrived, you probably want to review him :) (I'm poking User:SunStar Net for the same reason). -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 16:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted a thread to the admin noticeboard asking for opinions. Thanks for the reminder. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi Luna. I have just seen that User:Vmrgrsergr was blocked on 16 July for sock puppeteering. However, couldn't find any record at WP:RFC/U. I wonder if you could guide me to find out where is it documented? thanks. -- Isles <b style="color:blue;">Cape</b>Talk 17:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find it at RFCU. Since there was a Suspected sock puppets/Nadirali case, I changed the tag accordingly. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) I'm not aware of the circumstances which led to this particular block; probably better off asking Blnguyen. the blocking admin, if you needed a more complete explanation. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks all.-- Isles <b style="color:blue;">Cape</b>Talk 18:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
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 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for blocking the Harry Potter IP vandal at AIV just now. I was having trouble reverting the spoilers without reading them! Charlie - talk to me - what I've done 09:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. ;) – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reverting the recent nitwit edit to my user page.

Erm, you do realize, I hope, that in the wonderful world of computer fonts "Garamond" means almost nothing? I suppose that it's old-style (and of course serif), but that's about as far as it goes. If alive today, Garamond would be surprised to see some of the misuses of his name.

Your bonus for your good deed: A link to the (Garamond-irrelevant) Fontin Sans. It's excellent, it has genuine italics and small caps, it's OpenType (though not "open"=copyleft) and the price is right.

No need to reply. -- Hoary 11:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks For Reverting Vandalism On My Talk Page
Typical of them, they love wikipedia until they learn they can't put their non-notable stuff on it. :) -WarthogDemon 13:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Too true, unfortunately. Wish there were a better way for us to handle that, but until then, eh. See you around. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bh3u4m
I thought that I should perhaps draw your attention to mathematics and ethnic hatred. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Math hatred? How novel. :o I guess I'll keep an eye on that one, but not sure if there's a lot for me to do (unless I'm missing something obvious) – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that there's a lot to do at this stage, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of an admin. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The sheep is gone!
The sheep is gone! The sheep is gone! YAY! The sheep jumped over the moon '' and, was sold to a butcher to make wool and lambchops!  <font color="#084C9E">Mi <font color="#4682b4">r <font color="#6495ED">a <font color="#4682b4">n <font color="#084C9E">da  03:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * xD We'll see what happens, next. Watch this space! – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

67.87.225.29
Your blocking doesn't seem to work. See the anon talk history. Thanks. --Aphaia 14:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They can still edit their talk page, even while blocked. While it is my strong belief that several abusive accounts have been using that address, prematurely cutting off an important route of communication and possible appeal doesn't seem necessary, just yet -- I am fallible, after all. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I forgot it. This feature is not introduced into the projects I'm active. :D --Aphaia 22:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Komodo Lover sockpuppets.
I have reason to believe that the following members, Special:Contributions/202.151.193.26 and User:Not infinety, are sockpuppets of Komodo Lover, based on their edits. Just thought you ought to know. Thanks in advance. CBFan 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Took a peek, yesterday, and wasn't sure; took another look, just now, and was ready to block, but it looks like you got somebody's attention by now. Kudos. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to block the Hazelton sock again
Thanks in advance --Eleemosynary 05:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Let me know if you see more. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Eleemosynary 05:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow!
That was my first 'in-action' vandal-fighting....wow! Thanks for the timely block on User talk:86.29.253.55 and deleting all those pages! I've got to get VandalProof, so I can keep up next time! – Dreadstar †  06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, cool. :) You did pretty well. There's a fair number of useful tools at WP:RCP, for the curious-minded. I used VandalProof for awhile (actually, still do, sometimes). Cheers! – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks! I'm on the waiting list for VP, and I'll check out more of the tools on RCP - which I just recently joined!  That was actually kinda exciting...the chase was on!  – Dreadstar  †  06:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'm not quite as active in that area as I used to be, but I'll look forward to seeing you around. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very cool! Me too, you! – Dreadstar †  19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

VP is totally awesome! Makes it a lot easier and a lot more fun eradicating vandalism...powerful, powerful tool! – Dreadstar †  03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
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 06:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New user?
You ask here "please explain how you randomly stumbled across a dispute as a "new" user". I just want to point out (having had this user accused of being my sock) that there have been a number of anons contributing to the talk page lately including opposing the MikeD78 viewpoint, eg 63.245.145.113. I am not opposing the block as the user has nothing to do with me (they can do that for themselves) but I am pointing out the shakiness of your reasoning for the block. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I didn't accuse you of anything, nor did I name any suspected sockpuppeteer. While I do appreciate your taking the time to leave me a message, the claim that "a number" of anons have been editing seems a little off; in the past three days, I see one edit from one anon, and that anon's only made that single edit -- and well over 12 hours before the revert war, to boot. It seems unlikely that they'd wait around, silently, for 18 hours just in case a revert war broke out, and also that a new user would be able to leap into a revert war just so, or that an experienced anon would register out of the blue. I suppose it's possible that 63.245.145.113 is someone logged out, but I'm not in the mood for a witch hunt, at the moment. In general, while I appreciate your concern, I'm not sure that I agree. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I didnt imply you were accusing me, it was who accused me on this new users user page, certainly not you. Of course where I really have an issue is that Mike D78 himself appears to be a sock, probably of  (banned with the underlying IP 5 days before Mike appeared) who is also  aka  aka  aka  (all apart from  Mike have been confirmed by Jpgordon on checkuser to be the same person). Mike left a note on my user talk this morning implying that you blocked this new user because he asked you to and I certainly do have issues with this obvious sock having the authority to see anyone blocked, or even clainming to. Voice has a number of socks and is hard banned by the arbcom so when a suspicious sock of his is listened to by an admin(as he claims) I get seriously worried and if you want to investigate anybody that is where you should start, we have clearly have serious sock problems at the pedophile articles and I want to make sure you are under noi illusions about what is going on. Best wishes, SqueakBox 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, tricky. If I've ever spoken with Mike D78 before, I don't recall doing so; it's possible I forgot a conversation, somewhere, but I definitely didn't make that block at anyone's request. I see User:Sdhrfr is currently tagless, which is fine with me personally. Sounds like you may want to submit a checkuser request, if you haven't already. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

6000th edit and Wikibreak
Long time no see; Hope you remember me. I just made my 6000th edit and I will be going on a Wikibreak starting this Friday, July 27 until August 13, since I will be going to South Korea to go on a church retreat and visiting my relatives in Seoul. <font color="red" face="papyrus">NHRHS2010 Talk  23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly I do. Good luck, and enjoy the trip! :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Heh, thanks. I figure it's a quick thing I can do to be helpful, between classes and such. :) Wouldn't be able to get it done, without the help from many diligent users such as yourself, making those reports. Thank you, too. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revision...
Thanks for the revert to my talk page! Quick fingers. You got to it before I could. Douglasmtaylor 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Friendly fellow, that one. Blocked for now. ;) – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thank you again.  Douglasmtaylor 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet, but I might have screwed up the report
Hello Luna -

I tried to report a possible sockpuppet today here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bob_Lee_Swagger

The sock was User:Bob_Lee_Swagger, the suspecteed puppeteer was User:MadeinFinland.

I'm not sure I did it right and I'm uncertain about what to do next. Could you have a look?

thanks, Jddphd 20:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good start. I'd recommend adding some diff links comparing the two users -- say, "Here we can see that the two users were reverting to the same versions, [diff] [diff], and here the new account signs with the alleged puppeteer's username [diff]," and so on. Whatever leads you to believe these two are sockpuppets, that should go onto the case page. Doesn't need to be a complete laundry list, but hopefully enough to build a strong case -- remember that you're much more familiar with what's going on than whoever looks at the report will be, so be their eyes and ears, so to speak. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock
Cheers, thanks for the help with the unblock! --Daysleeper47 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You betcha. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

About deferral of Anittas on AIV
See also: Will (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so I see. I'd probably defer to them, then. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile
<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

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.
 * Hey, thanks! Right back atcha. ;) – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, for a while I thought you were an Anti-vandalism bot, probably because of the emergency Luna Shutdown swich. You're a lovely Wikipedian, and a role model for other Wikipedians. Connell66 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, that's awesome. ;) Saying you look up to me, though, I think that may be one of the highest compliments a person can give. Thank you. I'll try not to let you down. Although I still make my own fair share of stupid mistakes. But that's a different kind of learning. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. We all make mistakes sometimes. I think you're pretty smart. Connell66 05:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't Find Article I Just Submitted
Hello!

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and yesterday I submitted an article. I thought I did it correctly, but when I went to look for it I cannot pull it up.

The article was entitled: "Chattanooga's Terminal Station, Today's Chattanooga Choo Choo Vacation Complex."

Can you please help me? Thank you!

Ostrolenka 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)ostrolenka
 * Checking Special:Contributions/Ostrolenka, I see you've got some edits at Introduction, particularly these two -- that might be what you're looking for? WP:DIFF should have some information on how you can make use of those edits. If you wanted to make a separate page, I suppose Your first article would be a good place to start. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

 * Why, thanks. :) Always glad to help out a bit. Keep up the good work, yourself, too. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Best of luck to you, in your future endeavors. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of semi-protection
Can you expand the semi-protection you imposed on Negima!? to permanent (or at least two months) instead of one day? It's very very likely the vandalism as soon as the page is unprotected - 上村七美 | talk 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen it. Hm. Looks like it took them a few weeks to notice it had been unprotected. Perhaps another long wait, and they'll forget about it altogether. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the page needs permanent semi-protection because of the IP's relentless demand to remove the article without good substantial reason (just for the "good of humanity" he said, but it's still vandalism for a legit article) and I know it might not work. But let's see if two months can do the job. Thanks! - 上村七美 | talk 00:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep yep. :) I'll probably still be around to deal with them, if and when they come back. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If not for your vigilance, I would have posted a report in the requests for page protection anyway and wait for the slow response while the vandalism gets worse. I already did but removed it as soon as you protected the article. Thanks again for the page protection. ありがとう！- 上村七美 | talk 01:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

why?
why you delete hawthorn secondary college article? please explain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andypandy101 (talk • contribs).
 * A school with an anti-gravity room where people learn through virtual reality and "instant learning tablets"? I should hope it's obvious enough why it was deleted. :p – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 rfcu...
Hi Luna

Thanks for archiving the old rfcu on DY71. Unfortunately though, you also archived a current outstanding request. WOuld be kind enough to fix that, please? I’m asking you, becasue I haven’t had much luck formatting this page – in fact, my botched request is probably what’s confused you.

link to the rfcu

Many thanks and kind regards  --Merbabu 06:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. Should be fixed, now. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers. :) --Merbabu 06:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Health hazards of carbonated drinks
Dear Luna Santin,

Yesterday I submitted an article "Health Hazards of Carbonated Drinks". That's my first contribution. There are questions that I should like to put to you.

1.  Do I need to do any more in the process of getting it accepted? 2.  How do I check out responses to my questions if they are not e-mailed to me? 3.  When does an article get logged into Wikipedia's encyclopedia? 4.  I have requested feedback. Do I need to enter the Wikipedia web site and if so where do I get the information on feedback? 5.  Does Save Page automatically submit a page, or is there some additional "submit" instruction? Many thanks for your help.

Dr Edward Willhoft --Edward Willhoft 10:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of your questions may be answered here. That's where you asked, and that's where you got feedback; you also got some on your user talk page. And of course you're getting some here and now. &para; Neither you nor anybody else has submitted an article titled Health Hazards of Carbonated Drinks or (with more suitable capitalization) Health hazards of carbonated drinks. &para; "Save Page" does indeed submit a page; there is no additional "submit" instruction. (However, there is a highly recommended earlier stage, "Show preview".) -- Hoary 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied fairly extensive on Edwards talk page. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, especially for the prompt responses. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ferretpost...
Nice try Luna ;)...I told people I am not completely going away, sometimes real life is more important to take care of first, check my talk page.<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Figured it was worth a shot! ;) Glad to see you're back. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)