User talk:Luna Santin
| Talk – Sandbox – Blog |
|
Welcome to my talk page! I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here.
|
Sockpuppet found
I've found another sockpuppet of Komodo Lover/Snakezilla/Black Rhino Ranger/etc here. Dora Nichov (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... looks like a case to be answered, but I'd like a second opinion from someone else familiar with the above users, to be on the safe side. My recollection's not as clear as I'd prefer. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I am fairly "familiar" with him, you can also try Triceratops9. ;) Dora Nichov (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 13:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
MCVerstappen and Ernienotsowise
Thanks for the heads up. They look like sockpuppets to me. The relevant IP address has also made some edits to the same article. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Saw the IP, too. Thanks for having a look. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Super-spam?
This guy's sole contributions [1] center on a not-yet-released CD set that he had a part in producing and which will be available only via the internet. I say it's blatant spam and self-promotion, and should be reverted. What say you? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could be I'm not seeing something in particular, but if we take this long-term diff (or this longer one), it looks like he's editing about other things, as well. He's made quite a few edits in a very short period, though, so I wouldn't be surprised to have missed something with a quick glance. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I should have directed you to this [2] on the talk page. He's the producer of the CD set, it hasn't shipped yet, but they're taking orders (imagine that!) and it's a "limited edition" not available in stores, so they can set a high price. I ain't buying. In more ways than one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, could you add this sock to the block log here? Thank you. Benjiboi 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Safe
You think it ought to get protected? It's been getting a lot of blanking/vandalism/spam lately it appears. -WarthogDemon 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's an odd one, wouldn't have expected an article like Safe to have those sorts of problems. Well, maybe self-promo shouldn't be a surprise. Gave it three days of semi, since it doesn't seem to have much recent activity outside that. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Rexykik
thanks for being civil about it : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexykik (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- And thank you for your understanding. I wasn't sure if there was any way to go about that without leaving a really sour taste in your math. Glad to see that doesn't seem to be the case. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Love
Kitty53 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
For you, Luna.Kitty53 (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Request Block to Stop Edit War
Hi Luna. User:Ward3001 has reverted User:Fredrick day and my post to show image on Rorschach inkblot test regardless of consesus or policy. Request help or direction. Regards--Garycompugeek (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Is pointless now. User:Cbrown1023 has protected page. Withdraw block request. --Garycompugeek (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I'm a party in the dispute, I have a conflict of interest and should avoid using admin tools to resolve it. Involved editors including myself can post to the 3rr noticeboard or requests for page protection if needed, in the future. Not that this is a highly useful reply, but I figured I should say something in response. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Understood. I figured that might be the case but was confident you would provide a direction if needed. You make good points about test invalidation examples. I have yet to concretely find any previous consensus. The TALK appears more like those opposed simply gave up and left in frustration. Things will work themselves out.--Garycompugeek (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Rorschach
I just wanted to be sure you understand that I really did not take offense, nor was I bothered, by your question. I don't just assume your good faith, I deeply believe that your question was in good faith. I'm just in a very difficult position of having to answer questions about statements made based on my expertise when I am told that an expert's opinions are out of bounds. I hope you understand. If you ever wish to discuss any of this truly privately, let me know and I'll give you my email address. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can sympathize with having to recount things said long ago in a different context; thus the apology. I wouldn't say an expert's opinion are out of bounds -- I'm not clear on exactly what your level of education/training is, here, but I don't really need to, I think, just to be glad we have somebody with direct knowledge of the field participating. Without naming names, I gather some of the other regular contributors are, as well, but I try not to go digging around into people unless they make things obviously public or I have a pressing reason to. We don't appear to agree in this particular dispute, but I welcome the discussion. :) Thanks for your time. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: You are being talked about...
Thank you for this note, I appreciate being able to tell my side of the story quickly :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Glad I could be helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A favor
Could you do me a favor and fix the cut and paste move of Peter Maivia Jr to Peter Maivia, Jr.? I'm asking directly cause not controversial, it's obvious that's where it should be, according to WP:NCP. It's just requests at WP:SPLICE tend to take awhile and you were the first admin I saw online. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Got it taken care of. Thanks anyways. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Awhoop. Sorry for the delay. Lemme know if anything else needs doing. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Komodo Lover is back again.
His newest account is User:Puncharoo and he's still insulting us. I think he needs not only to be blocked, but his talk page protected. CBFan (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm contacting AndonicO (the original blocking admin), to ask if he would mind if I extend the block to indefinite. He does seem like a very likely sock (especially with this edit.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seems resolved; I wouldn't call myself an expert in this area, at any rate. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Re your block of User:Witysmartone
Hi, just wondering why you only blocked for 24 hours? If you look at the contribs that user has failed to make a single constructive edit so far - normally that warrants an indefinite block? -- Roleplayer (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing too mysterious. :) The user was only active for about 40 minutes, in all. In my experience with basic vandal accounts, the duration of the block only rarely makes any difference in practice. Most times, they never return even after a short block. In the event they do return, they'll either continue disrupting the project (in which case it's easy enough to re-block) or will contribute helpfully (in which case we're better off than when we started); in the former case, the indefinitely blocked vandal will be quite able to return using another account, anyway, so the term "indefinite" can be a bit misleading. If there is a danger in this strategy, it's in allowing a number of iffy accounts to sit around autoconfirmed, but we tend to do that already, with a few thousand every day. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK thank you for the rationale! -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you
For protecting my page from random IP vandalism. That guy was pesky. =) DiverseMentality (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to be helpful. They might be back, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
insultive user
Hi,
I have taken your advice and wrote this on that talk page. "I apologize if my edits caused you edit conflicts. It was definitely not my intention to do so. I would also appreciate if you would address the matter in less aggressive way next time. Thank you."
We'll see if this user answers.
Thank you for your effort!
--Avala (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well, he changed it from fucking idiot to idiot after I apologized for edit conflict - [3]. Some people just cannot be changed. --Avala (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Help removing "disputed" banner
Hi Luna,
You helped me once before on a technical matter, so I am hoping you can do so again.
I am a research scientist with direct expertise in the area related to the WP entry 20-hydroxyecdysone. Some months ago I edited this entry quite substantially, after indicating in the Talk page the ways in which I intended to clean up the the article. At that time the entry did indeed contain some strange claims and had - correctly - been flagged with a banner about disputed accuracy.
As a professional in the area, I would say that the current version of the article is balanced. There has been no dissent to my revisions (indeed, no interest at all) from former editors of this entry, so I think it's time to take down the warning banner.
I just don't know how to go about doing it.
Thanks,
Lloyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LloydGraham (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. If you see the
{{disputed}}at the very first line of the article (while editing), that's the bit of text that calls the template notice (the two curly braces "transcludes" a template, the text between them is the name of the template -- some templates have "parameters" set apart by vertical bars like |, if you see that). Removing the{{disputed}}text will get rid of the template. I can do this, if you need, but figure I should give you a chance to see it in action. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've now removed the banner. I thought banner templates were protected, so I assumed that removal of this one would be reversed by a bot unless I had admin privileges... but maybe only some types of banner are like that. Thanks again. LloydGraham (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Block of IP 165.228.137.158
Thank you for blocking this vandal IP, however I noticed that this block was only for 24 hours and that the user has 5 previous blocks, 2 of which were 3 month each. I was wondering if a longer block might be in order? Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it continues vandalizing, sure. From experience, it looks like the IP is probably shared by an ISP (between several people over time, not by masses of people at once). It has been a source of problems, but the previous block was about six months ago; we can probably afford to re-evaluate based on recent behavior. If you're still concerned, though, feel free to get another opinion. Appreciate the thought and effort, either way. :) Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fair approach, thanks for responding so quickly. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Reduction in scope of {{Template:Forms of government}}
Since you have been active on the template talk page before, I thought I would let you know that I have initiated a debate to reduce the size of {{Template:Forms of government}} here. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to Piotrus statement
Here [4] --Stor stark7 Talk 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Prussian Blue (duo)
An editor has nominated Prussian Blue (duo), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (duo) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Relocating non-notable fictional material and would like to point out an issue; one I've raised before and gotten nowhere with. See these example links:
- http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Stargate:Children_of_the_Gods
- wikia:Stargate:Children of the Gods
They both go to the same place; the first has a rel="nofollow" automatically added while the second does not. This gives Wikia a PageRank boost for every usage (and there are many thousands) of the interwiki form of link. I believe that this happens for other prefixes, too, but am not sure. This needs to be changed for the same reasons that the regular link has the nofollow inserted. This is a serious conflict of interest for the non-profit org vs the for-profit Wikia as the same god-king is involved. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it gives anything on the m:Interwiki map a PageRank, in theory. I tried to let some people know about it as well, but I should probably have left a note on the meta talk page. I'll do that now. -- Ned Scott 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
History merge...
Hey, when you merged the WP:SUICIDE articles, you didn't do a history merge. Might want to do that... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, is that standard practice? I'd figured I shouldn't, in case somebody wanted to reverse the merge -- I did act unilaterally, after all, even if I waited a while. But I'm not feeling picky about it (if anybody wants to, feel free; if not, tell me I should). – Luna Santin (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Jamiechef2
Hey - noticed you reverted this, thanks... can you check the rfcu page and the couple things I've sent Alison since? Nobody's gotten around to blocking this abuser since the CU was proven. M1rth (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)