User talk:Luna Santin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Talk – Sandbox – Blog |
 |
Welcome to my talk page! I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here.
|
[edit] RE: Your checkuser request
Well, at first when he said this I was puzzled because I must of misunderstood what you meant by going to /IP check and after a while the slipped from my mind with all the homework in real life I have to do. Since you bring it up, I assume that you are rather experienced with lesser know aspects of wikipedia, it would be really appriciated if you could help me out. I'm not experienced with Checkuser (as you can see), I mostly only know how to revert, warn, and file an AIV report. Anyway, on the situation at hand, what caught my attention to Devilzhitmen was the following quote in his unblock request (which had obviously been rejected):
if you block my account indefinately i'll just create a new one
As you can see, he is clearly threatening account abuse. He was blocked for vandalism and personal attacks, and an editor has also expressed concern that he is a sock of User:Eddieebo (who has a similar record) although I don't beleive that this has been confirmed. There is the whole story (or at least what I know). What do you beleive would be the proper course of action? Should I file a Checkuser request with a subpage under Eddieebo?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Lectures
Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism?
Hi,
I got some warning from you about vandalism but I can't recall ANYTHING like that and I do not share an anonymous IP.
Could you please tell me what entry this is about?
Thank you 91.129.34.132 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Häwatein
- Looks like another user left the warning, actually, but someone on this IP did make a rather nasty edit to my talk page, back in January (you might not want to look, if you have sensitive eyes). That said, that was quite some time ago, and it's quite plausible that this IP address is dynamically allocated and someone else was using it at that time; if this other person never checked their messages, then as far as I know the "new messages!" bar would wait around until you came along. :) Nothing much to worry about, I think. Thanks for your time, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User: Ducksofmercy
Please reconsider my block. Sorry I'm using an IP, but this is the only way I can talk to you 86.145.144.99 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:Meli loves uncyclopedia
Only 24 hours? For an account that has only done vandalism? Corvus cornixtalk 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. I don't see much practical difference between that and indefinite, in simple cases, except that indef blocks poison the well against reform. If they're really that determined to vandalize, they could just register another account by then, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] nice job
way to revert my edits on 'teh' you fucking nerd, way to have your priorities straight get a job/girlfriend/gym pass you fucking asshole, maybe work on articles like Ghandi or Spain or something that actually matters FUCKER IF YA GONNA BLOCK ME FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA, DO IT PERMANENTLY
- Well! That really is teh spit! --David from Downunder (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sir/Dame inline discussion
Hi Luna - any suggestions on raising the profile of the Sir/Dame discussion? I already posted at the policy RFC board & village pump. If you know of any other editors that would be willing to consider the issue or if you have further comments it would be appreciated. thanks Ripe (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Taking your own advice
I have Hardyplants on my watchlist, as we have collaborated on some edits, so I noticed your edits to his talk page culminating here. Normally I wouldn't get involved with something like this, but I've seen your attitude before, and I find it quietly destructive to Wikipedia. In short, you are supporting the the view that it is worth discouraging a productive editor who happens to sometimes deal with vandalism in a way you disapprove of, in favor of not discouraging anonymous editors who just might switch from making inane and offensive edits to becoming productive contributors. Although I don't have the numbers to support it, it seems to me that the loss of productive editors is at least as much of a problem as the failure to recruit new ones, and it seems patently obvious to me that it is easier to evaluate the contributions of a contributing editor than the potential contributions of an IP that has so far only defaced articles.
I've watched too many productive editors leave Wikipedia. I almost left myself because of the refusal of admins to block a registered vandalism-only account with numerous edits because it hadn't vandalized for a few hours (I no longer report anything to AIV).
I hope I've gotten "you looking at things from a slightly different perspective."--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll readily acknowledge you have a point. Users in general are a vital resource, both new and old hands. In the event an old hand is willfully pushing newcomers away from the site, however, I find it only proper that someone should have a talk with them -- no doubt you have a similar goal in mind, here. Out of curiosity, where have you seen my "attitude" before? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I was unclear: I've seen other longtime users with the same attitude that I've noted in you above. This has been my first encounter with you.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem. In retrospect, I should have been more polite, much as you've been here. I noticed David from Downunder mentions on Hardyplant's talk that I have a "ridiculously soft" attitude toward vandalism (not sure if you share that opinion) (I'll add David is welcome to join this thread), but I've always thought my reputation holds I'm pretty active in terms of dealing with and blocking vandals -- see my log including thousands of vandalism blocks, or my contribs which are sometimes difficult to dig through because of all the reverts. Admittedly, I'm not quite as active there as I once was. It could be that we're all reading each other based on our prior interactions with other people, which would be unfortunate. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, my comment about your attitude to vandalism was based solely on the comments you left on Hardyplant's talk page. --David from Downunder (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem. In retrospect, I should have been more polite, much as you've been here. I noticed David from Downunder mentions on Hardyplant's talk that I have a "ridiculously soft" attitude toward vandalism (not sure if you share that opinion) (I'll add David is welcome to join this thread), but I've always thought my reputation holds I'm pretty active in terms of dealing with and blocking vandals -- see my log including thousands of vandalism blocks, or my contribs which are sometimes difficult to dig through because of all the reverts. Admittedly, I'm not quite as active there as I once was. It could be that we're all reading each other based on our prior interactions with other people, which would be unfortunate. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I was unclear: I've seen other longtime users with the same attitude that I've noted in you above. This has been my first encounter with you.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Page protection didn't stick
Your attempt to protect the page The Indian Institute of Planning and Management didn't seem to work; the whitewashing reversion war is still going on. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pretty transparent sock, blocked it for 24 hours. Thanks for letting me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Editing User:JerkyJoe
Suggest indef for User:JerkyJoe, all the edits are vandalism only. Jeepday (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- No objection if you or anybody wants to switch up; I've lately started holding back on indefs except with socks or other users who display clear knowledge of Wikipedia and/or seem to be repeat problems, or the like. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks I changed it to indef, generally I agree with you but the edit history was a bit big. Jeepday (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. :) Can see why you'd want to, especially in this case. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 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) 08:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Things like [1] almost make me regret resigning my adminship. Dragons flight (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking you might have had +sysop at some point. :) Glad to see you're still about, I remember running into you at that SF meetup (I think!). – Luna Santin (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You can have the tools back if you like.... WjBscribe 10:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know. I resigned for a reason, and my feelings about that hasn't changed. Dragons flight (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] American Family Association
Hello Luna. I've replied on my own Talk page. No objection to another admin doing his own analysis to see if the block should continue. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nazism
There nothing unconstructive about fighting nazism, is there? All ways are allowed in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.99.179 (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just redirecting links where they belong. Checkout patriot.nu to see how they work themselves. If they work in an undemocratic way, why should I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.99.179 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever. They beat up immigrants in the streets, I mess with their page on wikipedia, which they use for propagandistic purposes. Which is worse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.99.179 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
All I can say is that sometimes it's difficult to keep a NPOV. 83.248.99.179 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] IIPM
The IIPM page that you tried to edit-lock. The vandals and sock puppets are back, and they are placing fake "Edit lock" tags. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- So I see; the particular user who came in today looks to be blocked, and another administrator has protected the page for two or three more days. Appreciate your keeping me in the loop, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ill leave it to you
To block the puppets at The Peter Garrett stuff - bet its all the one dude :( SatuSuro 09:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC) But then I have been wrong on the issue - sometimes it might be a pair or three playing but :( SatuSuro 09:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- They got my attention, yeah. Was hoping it'd become more obvious if I gave it a second, either that they're the same person or a small group in collusion, but for now I guess it can't hurt to play it safe and watch them as individuals. Blocked one of them, so far. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have such strong memories of your milhist position - it is odd finding you fighting the plain old vndls after those days of having to cope with all the issues of that project - hope you are finding chances to breather after all that :) SatuSuro 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I manage to get around. :) Seems to have slipped my mind quite what issues you're alluding to -- they all blur together, after a while, though. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I was probably trying to defend the WP Indonesia project from some balkan enthusiasts for terrorism - but dont let me start - it was a long time ago - and there are many other battles yet to be moved on from :| SatuSuro 09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh, that does sound more familiar. :) Glad to see you around the wiki, still. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Now theres another one - thanks for putting it that way - so you have noticed that too - the editor loss in the odd areas that i work in - is bizarre - i sometimes feel like i am the only editor on some projects sometime :( - - anyways thanks SatuSuro 09:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ZipWho.com
What do you think of ZipWho.com itself, aside from the obvious problems with the users posting links to it? Nyttend (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- No particular opinion on the site itself, aside from the rather unfortunately shady methods being employed by somebody who wants it linked. If Wikipedians acting in good faith and without a conflict of interest believe it will be useful to improve articles, I suppose that's fine. I'll be checking for links to the site periodically, mainly to see if these socks keep at it; especially if they do, there's a chance the link will become blacklisted (m:Spam blacklist), so you may want to hold off or find viable alternatives if you can. You certainly don't look like one of these socks to me, though, so I'd say you're okay to do whatever. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Helena, Alabama "sock spam"
What does the term "sock spam" mean? I noticed you removed a line of marginal at best worth from this article, I'm just interested to know what the term means and how it is used, thanks. Civilengtiger (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- That is a bit vague, I'll admit. :) Intended meaning was "spam from an abusive sockpuppet" but you can find slightly more complete explanations at the talk page of the user who originally added the link or this checkuser request (note that's a permalink, it may have been edited since). My soon-to-be reply to the #ZipWho.com section above may also be relevant. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
I saw you reverted this IP. It had a week-long block expire a few days ago, and has engaged in a spate of vandalism since. Enigma message 17:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hm... only had a quick glance at it, at the time, I think. On closer inspection, every diff I checked seemed to be problematic. {{anonblock}}ed for one month. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Hullah
I noticed you left a leaning delete vote on this AfD before the article was updated with many journal entries, etc. Would you mind revisiting the article and perhaps reconsidering your vote? --Faith (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Made an addendum to my prior comment; thanks for pointing that out. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Great work!
 |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| Awarded for your anti-vandal work today! Keep up the great work... Tiggerjay (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
- Ah, thank you. :) It's been a pretty good while since I saw one of these, too. So often the only feedback we Wikipedians give each other is negative, it's glad to see people spreading cheer and goodwill. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
sup?Wowisntfair (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FYI
You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leon harrison :) -- lucasbfr talk 08:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hypocrisy
So long as you maintain that comments like this [2] are acceptable behavior, but the use of the word "unreliable" is not, I think the word "hypocrisy" is appropriate. When you tolerate comments like this [3]in an AFD that you are following, but profess outrage over my comments, I think the term "hypocrisy" is mandatory. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Care to point out where I "maintained" anything about the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Clausen, or where I have professed "outrage" over your comments? It's not so much your use of the word "unreliable" that I find problematic, but your needlessly abrasive and insulting response when questioned about it by a number of confused users who appear to be acting in good faith. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Given the levels of bad faith and malice shown in the AN/I discussion and on my talk page before I responded, I find your concern over my supposedly unnecessary abrasiveness misplaced. I seriously doubt the good faith of many of the participants in this dispute (note, for example, that the AN/I thread was initiated by a user who abrasively, insultingly, and gratuitously assumed bad faith because I was not available to respond to his hectoring within a space of a few hours). Given your lack of evenhandedness in this matter, I hardly think it unlikely that your real agenda lies elsewhere. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise, but I find that unikely. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I notice you didn't answer any of my questions. Curious what "real agenda" you think I have, while we're at it. Your allegations might carry more weight with others if you took a few moments to explain or justify them, from time to time, rather than simply repeating yourself or switching to new allegations when questioned. Anyhow, you're either going to continue the problem behavior or not at this point, so the ball is in your court. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Given the levels of bad faith and malice shown in the AN/I discussion and on my talk page before I responded, I find your concern over my supposedly unnecessary abrasiveness misplaced. I seriously doubt the good faith of many of the participants in this dispute (note, for example, that the AN/I thread was initiated by a user who abrasively, insultingly, and gratuitously assumed bad faith because I was not available to respond to his hectoring within a space of a few hours). Given your lack of evenhandedness in this matter, I hardly think it unlikely that your real agenda lies elsewhere. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise, but I find that unikely. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Protection on Confederate government of Kentucky
You might want to semi it again. The next edit after you unprotected was Grawp. shoy 12:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely keeping a close eye on it, as long as I'm still about. :) Appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recent AN/I semi-protect
You recently responded to the following AN/I with a semi-protect and asked if there were other articles involved. The IP sock used by User:Pete_K is today on a tear through these other related articles [4]. Thanks for your help. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC) And currently editing with IP login 75.31.67.59. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for bringing that to my attention -- thought he might be back. Blocked both IPs, not sure if anything needs semi yet, but will keep an eye out. I've quickly put together User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Pete K, which should help keep track of these articles. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi! would you be able to discuss the ban evasion ip sock usage in this case with User:DianaW? This user has some questions that don't seem to have been answered to her satisfaction. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] SaddleAdam
It's that freak ClaimJumperPete again. I was trying to file a request for a checkuser, but I wasn't sure as to how. In the meantime, he was still disrupting the site via the sock's talk page. Could you protect it so that the idiot can't keep on with his nonsense? Thanks, Luna. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question
What did I do wrong in the images just now? Huh? User:Fangusu (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}}
[edit] Iron Man.
No big deal, **it happens. ThuranX (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 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) 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:Cowboycaleb56957
Thanks for blocking him. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course. :) Also, mostly for my own reference, I need to keep a loose eye on Cowboycaleb799 (talk · contribs) if that account begins editing. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User talk:Ғгоѕтеԁ Ѡѕ
It's a Grawp sock. Ask User:Alison if you need more details. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 203.173.161.113
203.173.161.113 (talk · contribs) based on the nature of the vandalism I would've endorsed a much longer block (1 month)... Regarding the personal information divulged in the edits, should that be deleted from the history or oversighted? xenocidic (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would say oversighted if anything; haven't yet sent in an email, but if you want to (or want me to), not a problem. Feel free to tweak the block as you like, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk page
Thanks for the revert. At least I know why they are annoyed with me now. I wouldn't agree to a fairuse image of Freddie Mercury when there were several free ones available. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds about right. Shame some people aren't more specific with raving complaints; might actually give us a chance to address them from time to time. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Don't know if you're watching this...
...but User:AvantVenger appears to have posted a response to your request for diffs on his(?) talk page. I did go through the contribs and various talk pages before I blocked him; he seems to have been fine until another editor drew his attention to some controversy over a patent claim, which he took as an attack and pretty much lost it. I feel his his subsequent name-calling was totally unacceptable, and my block was to prevent further disruption, but if you want to tweak it or unblock, feel free ;) EyeSerenetalk 11:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, thought I replied to this last night, agreeing with you. Seems the situation has continued to deteriorate since then, too... anyhow, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ENom
My thanks to you and several other admins for the block against KillAllSpammers/TeerGrub re: ENom. You archived the request for checkuserpage on 5 June but I just saw it today. There are several other IPs that appear to be the same person. Is it advisable to add them to the list now, or wait and see whether the problem crops up again? Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to be able to help. Looking at the page, I don't see any obvious ongoing issue, but should things crop up again, a request here at this talk page, WP:AN/I, WP:SSP, or WP:RFCU might be appropriate (IPs on the 67.150.x.x range are already mentioned as likely being related; other ranges may need a bit more looking into). – Luna Santin (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AvantVenger also on WP:WQA
Just wanted to let you know that SteveBaker was also over at WP:WQA posting essentially the same information as in the post on ANI; I've edited out the email address there, but will leave any other action to you, as the first admin on the scene. Risker (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jeff Albertson
Jeff Albertson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is requesting unblock. Could you give a bit of insight into why he was blocked? I think the assumption is that it's a user building up edits to fly under the radar before doing page move vandalism? Just want to double check before action is taken. Metros (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely. Several pagemove vandals including Panic, Leeroy (talk · contribs), Applesqsx (talk · contribs), Asleep at the Wheel (talk · contribs), and UPS Truck Driver (talk · contribs) were all created within minutes of Jeff Albertson, and all became active around the same time yesterday, reverting a few edits to build up to autoconfirmed status. May be worth noting Bubonic plague (talk · contribs), including block log and deleted talk page edits. That said, if you (or any admin who has some idea what's been going on recently) wants to AGF and unblock, you're welcome to. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Had to happen
Only to let you know I support this, likely would have done it myself within a few hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
