I want to thank you for all the times you've un-autoblocked me. Instead of giving you a barnstar (as you said you have so many of them), I'm going to give you this Wikibeer. Sure, I can't buy alcohol, as I'm only 16, but Wikibeer is made of 100% recycled electrons, as stated on WP:PUA, so this is okay! Acalamari 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should hope so too, don't want more instances of WP:EUI.... WjBscribe 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry to bother you (you're the third admin I've tried over this), but I saw you'd commented on a detail of the issue and, well, you gave me a Barnstar back in the day, so thought you might be able to help.
Starting here, I've been accused of being a sockpuppet for some reverts at Glenn Greenwald and of having vandalised this user's talk page. None of this has any truth to it whatsoever, but nevertheless there are a half-dozen instances of it on various talk and admin pages now. The user in question has made it clear that the result of any inquiries into the issue isn't going to change his mind, and frankly I'm a little worried at the thought of this accusation being left hanging around even when it's found to be groundless. What's the general call on having allegations like this left on pages in the future? Can they be removed on request if found to be false? Chris Cunningham 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have any ideas on why this would be happening? Is it possible to just protect {{AFC preload}} without having the banner on there? --Elkman(Elkspeak) 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, get this! Someone just cascade semi-protected{{User:Qxz/ad.css}}. Handed me a 'protect' button on a plate. Being the courteous and civil user that I am, though, I didn't go on a protection rampage, I just yelled at them a bit and then found someone to revert it. Oh, you might want to drop by and have a look at my talk page some time. I'm trying to write a bulletin board system in MediaWiki (with the help of a bot or two, of course). See ya – Qxz 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, not sure what to make of that. My impression was that cascading semi doesn't work (it applies admin protection to everything transcluded, unless the devs fixed that bit). Also, that bulletin board is the craziest thing I've seen on the wiki in some time. Very interesting. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Applies admin protection to everything transcluded. Yet because it was only semi-protected itself, I could still edit it, and transclude something else. See? Instant protection. Glad you like the page. Took me all day – Qxz 23:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Luna, Any chance you could check this thread on WP:AN? I would like to know if a checkuser might be a good idea. Its just that I can't find a rationale for or against it. Cheers Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for fixing it for me, guess its probably a good think I don't go starting checkuser requests all the time :-) Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning (GMT time); is there a quick way of being able to access the IRC CheckUser (clerk) channel, to monitor the bot feed? It would be extremely useful in clerking, as well as to ask for guidance during these early days of my clerking duties.
Would you please tell me why did you block my ip 24.66.94.140?
I edit rarely and I do not remember doing anything silly. Moreover these IPs are dynamic and change!
~rAGU
Yes it does make sense. But the message is not any encouraging! I am fine after loging in. Thanks ~rAGU
Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 06:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
I've seen that you indefinitely blocked some socks or impersonators of User:Serafin. There's still User:Dlugopis and User:Olowek left. Together they've made five reverts at Recovered Territories within 24h. It appears Olowek agrees with the guess that Dlugopis and he are socks of each other. CheckUser may also confirm that they're using the IP 131.104.218.123. This IP comes from the same place where 131.104.218.46 is from. There's absolutely no doubt that the latter is the main IP of the currently blocked user Serafin, not even from himself. Sciurinæ 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for intervening. I would still favour an IP check and maybe file a report tomorrow to see whether Serafin can be held accountable. In the meantime, another such account has emerged, User:Noz1, with a similar pattern. Sciurinæ 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Whoa, it seems like every time I want to go to bed another puppet appears. He must have a lot of accounts to waste them like these. Sciurinæ 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being such a fast vandal blocker. I may have been a little quick on the IP address, but I saw it reverted to his rather poor version and wanted to "nip it in the bud". If it wasn't apparent enough that user:Dlugopis was a Serafin puppet, [1] here he personally attacks me. How much more of this will it take for him to learn?
Hello Luna - banned user Maleabroad is continuing to cause a lot of disruption by editing through multiple sock-puppet accounts. See for example Randomatom001's edits of yesterday. I'm not sure if you are the right person to contanct in regards to this, but can see you placed the original one-week block. Is there anything else that can be done? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem at this point is that she's not listed under IMDb as having done any work (not even an (uncredited) tag). Proof is here. Please leave a message for me if I'm needed. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you noticed what was going on, and gather that you agree with me that Greeon and 69.181.43.159 are the same. I suggest that you block the IP, whereas "MightyLord", another "new user", has just restored the offending section again.
Also, Greeon has started a user-page for me, by bothering me about this stuff. Would you please nuke it? I don't want one. Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC 07:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was quick. Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Moving all of this stuff to here -- LW)
Ah, didn't notice your userpage turn blue. ;) Taken care of that. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help out, there. WHOIS says their IP is registered to Comcast, and it seems to be dynamic -- won't say too much more for now, but I'll try to keep an eye on it. Initially I saw it and just thought, "Oooh, lookiee, another controversy on the Coulter page," but that one heated up more than usual, so... – Luna Santin (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on Comcast! Greeon IS NOT the same user as 69.181.43.159 (trust me). All I tried to do was keep a discussion open. I mistakenly responsed to your comment on my Talk page on your User page instead of your Talk page. -- Greeon
Hi again, Luna. You might wish to block PowerSongs, self-admitted block-evasion account of Greeon, used to post the just-above on my talk-page (Diff). By the way, I'm "watching" this page, temporarily, so you might as well post any reply to me here. -- Lonewolf BC 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy cleanup of my checkuser request here. If you see any other (i hope not!) problems that I can fix, please do contact me :) Thanks again for the cleanup. MrMacMan 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here, Alex678 is confirmed to be a sock of Nationalist. But no one has blocked him yet. He had vandalized a couple of articles. Please block him ASAP, thank you.--Jerrypp772000 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! On December 31, 2006, according to the very first Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA, you blocked SEGA (talk·contribs) with the reason being that page. Two times since then, other sockpuppets have appeared and were dealt with, resulting in 30+ blocks. Now, there is a fourth case I have recently filed, but the clerks have asked twice where is the "Diff of the discussion that led to the community ban". I think I mentioned it correctly with this diff. Am I missing something else? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! -- moe.RONLet's talk | done 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing and saving me the time for a 3RR report writeup. Hopefully they will listen and engage on talk pages now... Georgewilliamherbert 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. NPOV is tricky to get down, but once you do, I think it goes a long way. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. They're back with a new IP address... 219.88.155.109 Georgewilliamherbert 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following Dan's comment here [2] that separate request are not needed, I have been in the habit of moving such request to WP:CHU with a clerknote and letting the user know. Is there a strong need to have their name in the page history when one can include a diff of the original request at WP:CHU/U? WjBscribe 18:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of one I moved over to the other board [3]. Nichalp has made no objection to fulfiling such requests. Seems best to have them on WP:CHU so they're dealt with straight away. I think they only check the usurpation requests that have been there for a week- rather than scrolling down the list. Also, having them at CHU means they end up in the right archive. WjBscribe 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look into this request again? It was filed as a class B and rejected as such although it's also a legitimate class F request. I'm dealing with ongoing developments. In the week since I've been asked to perform a sockpuppet investigation my userpage has been vandalized repeatedly from a public library that WHOIS indicates as about twelve to fifteen miles away from the physical location of those IP addresses and the vandalism included a threat to hack my computer. A sockpuppet registered today and nominated my investigation report for MFD.
At this point I'm uncertain whether to keep the appeal open and update it or to refile. My research indicates that a single individual has flown below the radar and damaged Wikipedia since July 2005 without ever getting sitebanned. A checkuser would help very much to complete my investigation. Please advise. DurovaCharge! 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how do you establish sockpuppeting for a user who is 30+days between edits? I don't understand - if a sockpuppet is blocked and then comes again as another sockpuppet after 30 days, does that mean that RFCU can never be established? --Hamsacharya dan 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is frequently but not quite always the case (a more complete explanation might be a bit WP:BEANSy). Checkuser isn't the only option, though, of course -- persistent sockpuppeteers can otherwise be dealt with via WP:SSP, WP:RFC, and WP:AN/I. Hope that helps! – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally created this topic de-novo on wikipedia to provide freely accessible public information about what is basically a financial fraud scheme. It is both current and contemporaneous, and I suspect that the number of page hits for this topic was mostly from individual consumers investigating the product being sold for $3,500 usd. It's removal is in fact detrimental to the public.
As well I have been providing free information on my website exposing the fraud to consumers, and explaining the free alternatives available. http://www.integramortgages.com/FinancialVOODOO
We have over 30 years of finance and specifically mortgage and real estate finance experience, and I am an expert in this field.
Additionally, we have been consulting with the Financial Crimes division of various western cities, and others, who are attempting to stop the sale of this product and prosecution of the individuals. State laws vary, however the deceptive and unethical sales tactics are wrong no matter where they are employed.
After my initial page creation (Independant 3rd party), that information was subsequently changed to what amounted to a legitimate looking link (endorsement) to the seller' commercial web site where they were selling their product. I subsequently discovered this and (rather than deleting their commercial info) I re-posted the original 'independant'content/ definition directly below what they had added.
In hindsight the original information may have been praised in a somewhat argumentative manner, however it was not incorrect.
I would like to formally request that you allow this page to be 'unlocked' and 're-posted' for purposes of consumer protection, and to providing fair, accurate, and relevant content on wikipedia.
I would also be interested to volunteer to contribute to wikipedia by either managing this topic or simply to assist as an expert in reviewing the content of the post to ensure that it is correct, non-commercial, and informative.
Best Regards,
Ron Hobbs
Integra Mortgage and Investment, Inc.
www.integramortgages.com
My ISP is Tiscali UK which has a shared IPs, I dont seem to be the only person requesting that you remove this block so could you please remove it? You do realise by blocking this ISP you're probably preventing about 2million people editing Wikipedia? --Shookvitals 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like fun... Anyway, when you've got a moment, could you possibly just take a quick look at Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages and make sure I haven't screwed anything up? I've spent the better part of a day making it vaguely current (and having a couple of things protected/unprotected). And remember to tag things when you protect them... speaking of which, AzaToth seems to be making some new protection templates, they have weird multicoloured padlock icons (green and blue and pink) you might want to look at his proposal, too. Thanks! – Qxz 19:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why are you blocking me I am the one updating Maricel's profile so stop blocking me if you don't wanmt me to report you....I think you are not Maricelian and you want to destroy us...stop it I am warning you... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesyjond (talk • contribs) 25 March 2007.
Please can you tell me why I am still blocked from editing.
I was recently informed by yourself that I had been blocked due to my IP address being one of many UK users who had needed to be blocked due to a member being abusive to another member.
As I understand things, this block was to last for two weeks? However, I am still blocked from editing.
Is the block still in place, or do I have a seprate problem with my computer?
This place's problems aren't going to go away by themselves. And yet what incentive is there for anyone who tries to deal with them? And what happens when they try? There are just too many people here who disagree with me, I guess. The events of today were the final straw. I quit. Was nice knowing you – Qxz 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do read them! But I'm also very busy, this week, and don't always have time. =\ Regarding your earlier message, I'm not actually too familiar with how Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages should look -- it seems well enough, to me, and if nobody's spoken up about it, yet, I'd say your edits were probably fine. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Luna, the situation is being collated here: User_talk:Abecedare/Maleabroad. I have not come across anything obvious over the past few days, but from the list it looks like the user is still active. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Luna, just want to say sorry. Some guy (now indef blocked) moved your userpage and talk page all over the place with complex redirects, I tried to sort it myself, but managed to mess up so I listed it on WP:AN/I, just want you to know that I wasn't involved in any messing around with your account, sorry again Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very annoyed to find that an IP address has been blocked by you. I don't believe it is anything I have done so why?
From reading other comments it appears you have blocked the whole of the UK or something because there is one irate user - if this is the way they are treated, no wonder they are irate!
I regularly find odd mistakes in wikipedia and if I had to sign in each time, I'd probably not bother to correct them.
But most annoying of all is not knowing why this IP has been blocked, whether anything has been done to correct the problem, or whether this will continue. It really isn't good enough.
Well i was not actually going to edit, i was thinking of putting an image i uploaded on an article (Brock Lesnar) but its protected and i have been waiting but it is still locked. Can you unblock it? Nothing is happening on that article and nobody says anything on the discussion. DGP
No, sorry. You aren't welcome here, Verdict (talk·contribs). You have been banned. Nobody's going to fall for your continued abuse and deliberate copyright violations. --Yamla 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the user calling themselves User:soopahoops77 has been abusing your chosen name. I would just liketo say, that i think Luna is a great name, as it reminds me of my cat i named Luna. I always thought she resembled a juicy and lush artichoke!!!
It was my fault for leaving my user account logged in on a public PC... Wont ever happen again. Thank you very much. Im gonna try to find out who did it, and they will be in trouble!
I just reverted a series of massive POV edits (and associated vandalism) by User:Rrrrrrrobbie to William Morgan (anti-Mason). The nature of the edits would seem to confirm a throwaway account made by Lightbringer, and an IP was just blocked as LB. Would there be a way to do an unofficial CU to see if the underlying IP is the same before I file an RFCU? It's wasted effort and time on both sides if the underlying IP's already been blocked. If it hasn't, rhen I'll file the request. MSJapan 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at a Money Merge Account and about a week ago was reading an article on Wikipedia about it. I went back to review the article and it has been deleted and protected. Can you tell me why? Thank you, RDSSTOCKS@SBCGLOBAL.NET —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.221.143.3 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Is there any specific reason as to why this was blocked, this is my current IP of when i'm not logged in, which is practically all the time, only one edit has been made from this IP and it was completely reasonable. I see however you must have blocked all IP's in the range 88.110.*.*, for whatever reason, please be more specific in the IP's you block rather than mass blocks. And if possible unblock this one IP. Kind regards (scatman839 13:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Response: I have no isolated the problem reference my 11 year old son on Wikipedia, I am using his logon to post this message, I have now completely barred him from use on the computer and have dealt with him accordingly, please accept my appologees as unfortunately he does experience learning-difficulties. I only found out what he was doing one day by viewing the pages history, and obviously the other day. I can ASSURE YOU, there will be no further problems, and you shouldnt need to block Tiscali people anymore. Marianne Selleyer, UK User.
why are you blocking me to edit Maricel wikepidia I am the one who contribute most of the stuff there so please stop bloking me...
I see I'm not the first to complain about your range block on 88.108.0.0/16. What is the reason for blocking all Tiscali users in the UK for 3 days? Please can you remember to put a reason in the block field, especially when blocking thousands of people for an extended period of time. Angela. 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You started out your comment on my talk page by saying that you weren't going to block me as if that were in doubt. There's absolutely no legitimate reason to block me for my actions, and as an admin it would have been nice if you had warned the people trying to bully me by putting fake threats of banning and vandalism etc. on my page that they need to knock that off. 216.165.158.7 01:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that in my opinion you were acting disruptively, and while I didn't block you right off the bat, I probably will if you revert that article to a redirect again without going through AfD, first. It's clear that several editors disagree with your action, which indicates to me that there should be more discussion and input from the community at large before taking any such final action. Consensus is important. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said that it would be unwise for admin to lift an auto-block on themselves, and that it would be best to request an unblock. What about if you auto-blocked yourself? Would it be okay to unblock yourself then or not? Acalamari 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious. Thanks. :) Acalamari 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of article on Deep Stealth Productions[edit]
After noting that an article on Deep Stealth no longer existed, I checked the deletion log which showed that you had deleted the page under the criteria for speedy deletion. I know the article needed a lot of work, but given the general standard of notability on Wikipedia, I believe that Deep Stealth Productions is notable enough to have an article. The article was not meant as advertising, but simply as an information source. Therefore, I am requesting that you restore the article so that it can be improved or discussed on AFD. You can reply to me on my talk page if you have any questions.
why are you keep on blocking me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????what did I do to you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesyjond (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No, seriously -- check your block log, which shows that neither I nor any other administrator has ever blocked your account directly. If you're affected by blocks with my name on them, you may be blocked through your IP address, or you may be affected by autoblocks -- if either case is true, please read and follow the instructions on the "you've been blocked" page (in particular the "Autoblocked?" section). – Luna Santin (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
luna, i just need one opinion from other administrator, and since you are the only other administrator that i know, i would like your help/opinion.
Recently i added one link to the wikipedia birds page that i thought it was relevant for the page.
One admin today had a discussion with me and deleted the link calling me a spammer. He offended me because i didn't add the link has a spam one, but only has a relevant source to the wikipedia page. I pointed him other links that i didn't deleted, but after that he delete some of them but not others that by the rules that he told me, they are also not relevant (i don't consider any of them spam! wich is offensive).
You can see the talk here: [Ohnoitsjamie Talk] at "Birds Page Editing" and here [JonixK Talk] at "Bird Links".
What i ask for your opinion is: i'm understanding wrong the concept of wikipedia and the admin has absolutly right, and if he has absolutly right, shouldn't he delete the 2 other links? Sorry for disturbing your time with this, but i really would like another opinion, i'm not a spammer, i never was and i would like to understand better this kind of concepts and judgments. Again, thank you in advance for your time and answer.
They moved the checkuser request for 81.blah to archive without ever doing anything about it. :/ I am not at all satisfied; they never told us if there were any sleeper accounts. Would you be comfortable moving it back out? --Masamage♫ 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 05:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, so I just have a question on making articles. I have tried a few times to creat an article about a Minneapolis Gang called The MCW.
It has been denied many times because it is "about a group,person or place" and I am wondering why I got this hex and not the
person who wrote the article about The Bloods? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joecontelson (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You just blocked them (good) but could you put something saying so on their talk page so when they come back if they start again its known they have been a past problem. I usually don't check block logs if they haven't had a warning yet so I would end up giving them a test or level one when if they vandalize they deserve more coming right off a block per say. Thanks. --Xiahou 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, Early in the year you desputed the image of the neopets homepage as fair use. image
The rules are:
This is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by owner of the website. It may also contain trademarked logos, which are likely not affiliated with Wikipedia. It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots
for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
It is used merely for identification purposes. IAmTheCoinMan 01:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aa ok, i hate history, theres so many edits, i just hate it. But i see, oh and ps. you might want to becarfeul when using the term 'no FU rationale' some might thing it doesnt mean fair use IAmTheCoinMan 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:o Gurch. No fair taking initiative while I'm still akwardly trying to figure out how to reply to that last email. My unfortunate tendency is to ignore things I can't figure out how to respond to, sometimes. Truth be told, I didn't put too much effort into figuring out who it was (didn't seem to be a profitable search?), but I s'pose I should've noticed. In any case, welcome back. I'll probably be returning to IRC at some point when I'm more caught up with offline life -- we'll see. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misza13 figured out the connection the day before I got blocked (he's good with that sort of thing... as far as I know nobody else did). I still feel a little guilty that I spoke to you so much as 'Qxz' without saying anything... if you don't mind that, that's a relief, thanks. Sorry if I put you in an awkward spot; don't feel pressed to reply, that's no problem. Stay away as long as possible, it'll do you good – Gurch 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, since those other accounts are dormant, I will wait for any new disruptive activity to take place before filing another request. Regards, Grandmaster 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Luna Santin, please spare these socks a break they were new, and than they created socks when people make socks its out of frustration obviously. This new user was constantly under attack, by Grandmaster, Adil and Dacy. They were calling him a sockpuppet and a meat puppet which is very inappropriate and biting new users is not nice. At least give them another chance I can spare him words if you like, I don't like the status of bashing new users just because they disagree with Grandmaster, to tell you the truth these "socks" had very good points in article editing which I would support, probably the only reason Grandmaster is going after them. [4]Artaxiad 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but as a checkuser clerk I should remain a neutral party regarding all requests, and so I'm probably not a good person to bring this up with. You might consider the admin noticeboard, or check the block logs of any affected socks to check which admin(s) may have blocked them. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, also what Grandmaster said as I had email contact with the "socks" I was trying to figure out why he made socks whether he was not aware or was doing it on purpose and he is not related to Rovoam as far as I know. Thanks for your help. Artaxiad 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Artaxiad provides inaccurate info. Robert599 created 5 socks, the last 2 after he was blocked for 3 days for creation of the first 3 and warning that it was not acceptable. Moreover, he was engaged in vandalism, such as here: [5] and personal attacks. There’s a good reason to suspect that the real puppeteer is a certain permanently banned user. I understand that this is not an appropriate place to discuss, so I suggest Artaxiad brings this matter up somewhere else, and I will provide detailed info about this case. Grandmaster 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter it does not give you the right to be uncivil and attack other editors. The user obviously lost his patience against Adil not the first outbreak against Adil, its pretty well known now. Artaxiad 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been civil, and this person made personal attacks on me and he was using socks from the day he started contributing to Wikipedia. Even Fadix said that he was "ban material". No need to continue here, take it elswhere. Grandmaster 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one who replied in the first place. Fadix is like "that" he has said alot of negative things, personal attacks etc. Artaxiad 08:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing don't tell me what to do. Artaxiad 08:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking this of you since I know that you are active on RFCU. A person/group of socks keeps on adding the same nonsense [6] to Torrisholme. The vandalism began in August 2006, and comes in waves, with several in early March (6-7, 11), and then a single incident on April 6. (The page has been protected now a couple of times) The recent vandals have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet/vandal only accts. My question is, would an RFCU - IP Check be suitable in this case? I've never done one, and I don't want to waste my time (or the clerks and admins) if I shouldn't file. I have a list of all the relevant accounts at User:Flyguy649/Vandal_Tracker#Torrisholme. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll file the request shortly. It looks straight-forward. I'll only file the ones from March onward (I suspect the other ones are stale, too), with a note linking to my subpage. I'll drop you a note when I'm done, if you want to make sure I didn't screw it up. Thanks very much for your help! Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Luna. You moved a declined RCU for User:William Mauco from pending cases, however I talked with User:Jpgordon and he told he will have a second look on that case (see [7]). Please put the case back between the pending cases. Thanks.--MariusM 05:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I logged into my professional account to respond to you, since I cannot email when blocked. I'm responding to your email about my using multiple IPs. I was rlogged in while working, and yes, the anon posts were intentional. That arguement happend in the middle of the night last night, and I thought the block was off.
Before the argument last night, I had edited the page for hours last night (about 3 hours to be precise). In fact, last night, I didnt log into my own account until that guy started making issues with the page (you have to be logged in to argue, and that is actually why I logged in). I am going to that country to help that agency (which concerns the website which the argument was about), but it isn't the same thing as my professional job (see my user pageistia so I did it anonymously. If you want me to explain why, Im happy to do that, but in a private email. So yes, tonight I logged on, as anon tonight, thinking it was all fine. And you immediately started attacking my edits, which I found strange. I mean, that was a 20 minute argument, and now it is being dragged out the next day, and now 48 hours more. Excessive.
As for the other IP, I was working on a remote login on a computer in one of my agency's offices in the US, on the other side of the world (I live in Europe). While working, I looked at the file, noticed it had changed and I redid my edits.
My world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia, as nice as it is. Look at my Userpage. I guess I have kind of an interesting job. But I please want my userpage clean, or else I want to have it deleted. I don't understand why it is important that I keep that messy argument on my userpage.
OKAY- SORRY, AM I WAS ONLY TRYING... O WNT TO BE A FUTURE WIKIPEDIST!
Thanks so much for the info! One more question...[edit]
Thanks so much for the information that you just posted on my talk page. That helps a lot! We are already planning on releasing everything under the GFDL license (actually it's already on the site). My biggest problem is with something like the country infoboxes there are dozens (if not hundreds) of these meta-templates. This makes the task very daunting. Is there any other way to just directly link the data on to the page (live)? That way when Wikipedia updates the template it's updated on our end too. I'm thinking there is no way to do this but hoping there is. :) My talk pageStrawberry Island 07:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thank you so much for the link to Special:ExpandTemplates!!! I really figured what I was asking was a pipe dream... but this information is sure a lot better then what I was thinking I was going to have to do!!! Thanks again! I really appreciate it! Strawberry Island 08:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are repeatedly reverting the edits in AFI list. Can you be a bit more respectful, in how you treat other's work? You could be right or wrong, but use talk pages to convey your views particularly when the edit summary clearly asks you to. If you want you opinions you could use the talk page and convince. But, this act of yours is pretty rude and doesnt fit the Wikipedian principle. If you further keep reverting without a discussion, I would need to elevate and seek moderation.
As talked about already in the talk page, ranking lists are seldom copyrighted. It is like the award lists- anybody could put who won what Academy awards and the Academy is not going to sue them. The list here is important to show, because it helps to cross-reference with the movie pages and a lot of people frequently use the page. The list in the AFI site is not that way and people have to copy the title and paste it somewhere else to know more about the movie, and you need to understand this. Anyway, since you and a few other people are so picky and want to enforce some weird laws, I've registered with the AFI and I'll write the AFI guys for permission to use in Wikipedia if it is copyrighted.
A simple proof of what I'm saying is if you go to the Washington Post or any other news page that uses the lists, they dont mention about AFI holding any copyright to the list. If AFI had held any, it would generally be mentioned at the bottom or somewhere. Probably they didnt imagine that somebody in Wikipedia would be fighting over the copyrights of a well know ranking list.
Btw... i found the press release of their 100 years lists. Press releases are by default in public domain, and the document doesnt mention anything about copyrights. You can check this out. In the meanwhile I've written them a mail and waiting for their clarification regarding the status.
I just wanted to thank you for dealing with this article, I spotted it yesterday and was planning on posting it on copyright issues. But I must admit I didn't have the courage to step in and remove the material. -- lucasbfrtalk 11:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
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 08:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you picking on me? I have been asking people left and right to stop reverting my deletions. The guidelines themeselves state it is fine for me to do this. I've reported the constant harassment to the admin noticeboard and literally just had my page unprotected and now you are protecting it again?! I am seriously close to tears. You guys are supposed to be staff, but all you are doing it harassing a user who is not even breaking the rules!!!! Please undo the protection or at least fix my deletions then protect it. This is unfair and ridiculous. I'm following the guidelines. You guys should respect my wishes and please to the same.67.163.193.239 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to protect the page, why can't you revert it back to the original edit since it is my talk page and the guidelines state my right to delete it first? I mean, this is extremely stressing, and I do not deserve to have people visit my page and see all those personal attacks and fake warnings-it's not right!67.163.193.239 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not neuteral as it is, since it makes their wrongdoings stay there. It does not involve taking a side. You can see from the Wiki guidlines that I am the victim here, as they clearly state it is allowed to edit your own talk page. You would not be taking my side, but doing what is truly fair. As is, I suffer from the backlash created by their false warnings, where no one gets hurt from my polite little message asking people to stop editing my talk page. If you leave it as is, it does make it seem like you are taking their side.67.163.193.239 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking their side, and it is not right. My version had one message, politely asking people to stop reverting my deletions since the guidelines state it is fine. Their version is full of false warnings and personal attacks. How is keeping the harmful, unfair version up going to help me at all? They are probably laughing at how they got their version stuck there and I can't do anything about it. If you really are staff, how can you let something like that happen? Those guys deserved to be blocked for all their harassment. All I want is my talk page to remain the way I want it, without having to deal with the stress of people wrongfully undoing my deletions and trashing my good name.67.163.193.239 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have the last laugh and my reputation is trashed. They will not move on. When I left that message, people moved on for a while, then all of these admins started harassing me. It's never going to end! And regardless of what your intentions are, by letting those wrong revisions stand, you are not doing what is right. You are a staff member, aren't you? You know the guidelines say I've got a right to delete stuff on my own page? So why am I the one being punished here?67.163.193.239 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does little good. I've already tried. A person unprotected my talk page, only to have you protect it again, so how will that help? You are letting my reputation be trashed and are putting me through a lot of unneccesary stress. Why don't you give those other guys warnings about reversing edits without a good reason on someone's talk page? Or block them? They are the ones breaking the rules here. You still have not answered why you are punishing me and letting them win even though they are the ones doing wrong here.67.163.193.239 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replying here, to keep it off your (now blank) talk page. Discussed briefly with John on IRC. Is this a better solution for you? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It is all still there, behind that link. If you deleted that whole archive, then it would be good for me. Tell me, how would you feel if some people with a grudge against you from another site came to your talk page and started giving you fake edits? And you ended up getting blocked for these faked edits repeatedly because of a few admins who did not do the proper research? And when you try to delete all these fake warnings and personal attacks, despite this action being permitted by the guidelines, various people keep reverting them? It's a horrible thing to have to go through and extremely stressing, especially considering all the problems I'm currently dealing with that these people are causing off of Wikipedia. Anyone who visits my talk page will still see that archive and can read all those fake warnings and use them against me. They have been doing it for weeks in various sections I post in, stating, "oh, well you just got warned for this" and stuff like that, even though said warnings were fake. It would just be better it it was all deleted, archive too.67.163.193.239 00:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue why I got vandalized by a random IP address - I wasn't even doing anything! But at least I get to up my VandalCount :) Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for the tips you left in my UserTalk page.
Am I right to think that they were triggered by the UserTalk comments for the NSW DET Proxy? (to which I have incidentally forgotten the URL :( )
Oh, and I don't generally correct pages unless i'm absolutely CERTAIN of what I'm doing - with the exception of a youthful and stupid edit i made in 2002 sometime on the Asperger's article. Anyhow, just thought I'd say hi. :)
Horst.Burkhardt 04:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was just wondering about this block. The ip had never been warned and only vandalized one user page. How often are exceptions to blocking without a single warning made and under what circumstances? Thanks for your help. GoodnightmushTalk 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I've been spending a lot of time at AIV and am trying to learn these guidelines. GoodnightmushTalk 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. I recently have begun work with Vandalproof but haven't become versed in the blocking policy as that's beyond what I get exposed to. Thanks again. Goodnightmush 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the mail from them. I could forward it to Wikipedia if you want
Dear Balaji Viswanathan,
Thank you for contacting AFI. The lists are public domain. You can use them as
long as you credit us with the correct title of the list , however you are NOT
allowed to use the AFI LOGO. You can say "AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills" but
can't print the actual logo. If you do want to print the logo we need to license
it. Thank you for your interest in AFI.
AFI does offer many exclusive benefits through membership, such as unlimited
access to the online AFI Catalog of Feature Films, invitations to AFI events and
special screenings, film-related magazine subscriptions.
Please visit AFI.com to learn more about the valuable and exciting benefits of
membership with AFI!
Just wanted to share a funny thought.
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Wouldn't it be brilliant if everyone's email inbox was like a wiki - then volunteers and admins could delete all the porn senders and rangeblock them :)
Anyhow, Perhaps you could explain what exactly about what I did was helpful, or give me a link to that page again so I can see the backlash. I only threw some fat into the fire - to provoke thought.
Also, Don't suppose you might tell me what a redlinked talk is?
I don't suppose you could also give me some help with setting up a userpage sometime?
I'm not Luna Santin, but I am bored and looking at this page, so I'll answer you anyway.
A redlinked talk is a discussion page that doesn't exist yet, so it shows up as a red link if you try to link to it. For example, the article Ugthorpe exists, but its discussion page (Talk:Ugthorpe) doesn't. When Luna first saw you editing, you didn't have any messages on your discussion page, so it appeared as a red link. Not having any messages generally means an account is very new, and sadly we often come across new accounts which are simply being used for vandalism, so it's nice to see one doing something useful.
In response to your earlier question about a shared IP address, more or less all IP edits are checked by someone at some point, but if there are too many unconstructive edits coming from one IP address, the only effective way to deal with it is to impose a block. Bear in mind, though, that such blocks don't affect logged-in users; anyone who does wish to edit from that IP merely has to create an account on a computer elsewhere (at home, for example) and then log in when they wish to edit. This isn't too much to ask for someone who has a genuine interest in contributing, but is too much effort for the average bored kid who wishes to mess up a page; besides, we encourage all contributors to create an account, for various reasons.
im not adding nosence to your page, do you know how to create a page so i can make mine own —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowperson (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
On what rationale did you revert my edit to Judy Wood? I explained why I included the extra information on the talk page, you, on the other hand, provided no explanation of your rationale. Removing legitimate criticism of this thesis from the criticism section of it looks like censorship to me. 124.183.228.151 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to provide an answer to this point? It's considered good manners to explain the edits you make when they are contested in this way. Nick mallory 09:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's become apparent that I need to step in and defend myself: Craxy, along with another user, have an irrational feud towards me over edits I've done in List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series and have created a series of sockpuppets to further harass me; Craxy, in particular, has about 4 blocked puppets. Also, consider this: how would a "new" user know how to request adminship, let alone know where the page was? I didn't even know how to sign my messages when I became a member; go check his contributions. That waas the very second edit he made. Don't let this user lie to you. You should probably just leave him alone. Also, consider consulting these:
This is becoming real irritating, he's accusing me of being a sock puppet. He won't leave me alone! I been on here for a few weeks and I don't know what he's talking about. LAcfm 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...for fixing my user page today. Was a vandal I blocked earlier. Whoever it was actually tried to log in as me, I got a password request through my email. Orderinchaos 11:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of any service. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know if you have closely looked at what is going on this page. The comment you are protecting is a personal attack. It does not add to the discussion or address ways to improve the article. So why all the efforts to protect it? If everything written on talk pages must be kept you will see in the history one of my comments was deleted. Also in the past I have had questions deleted, like on the Zsa Zsa Gabor talk page one person deleted my question as gossip. Should I try to get it protected? At the time I did not think it was worth the time.
But someone with your help certainly thinks it is worth it to imply I am a stalker of Clinton. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.49 (talk) 15 April 2007
Er, don't use sockpuppets. Simple. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on Toby Maguire. It needed protection, but I couldn't put it on there. You're the best!--DJSpeak your mind... 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure exactly what was going on, there, but it seemed organized. Hopefully semi puts a lid on it for awhile. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting my user page. I'm having some trouble with that particular anon (141.154.70.136), if you could deal with them accordingly I would appreciate it.--Mbc362 01:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just blocked them for 31 hours. What they do with the talk, at this point, seems to be moot. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting my talk page as well.--Mbc362 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to thank you for your good work on wikipedia and your excellent conduct in your brief dealings with me over a content issue. Thanks again. Nick mallory 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everyone else is leaving you thanks thingies. So I figured, hell, why not me! So um. thanks for being lunar satin. oh yeeeees. very juicy. --CableModem^_^ 03:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator intervention against vandalism: 74.32.225.76[edit]
Regarding your block of User_talk:74.32.225.76, they did not vandalize after the first warning, all three edits made from that IP occured before either of the two warnings Special:Contributions/74.32.225.76, the warnings were concurrent, 15 minutes after the activity stopped, with no activity by the IP in between User_talk:74.32.225.76. I don't think it was eligible for WP:AIV as there was no effective warning. -- Monty845 04:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting you believe this person is a good-faith contributor? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not, only that under WP:VAND a user should recieve at least one warning before being blocked which did not happen. Also, vandalism blocks are not meant to be punative, the ip stopped before even receiving the first warning. --Monty845 04:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's phrase it differently: do you feel that unblocking this user will lead to their making productive changes to the encyclopedia? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to judge either way based on only three edits (two of which were consecutive) in a short period of time, but that they stopped before even being warned suggests to me that they are unlikely to have resumed vandalizing absent the block. But if you feel it was approriate I will defer to your judgement. -- Monty845 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. If nothing else, serves as a reminder for me to be more patient, in the future. Enjoyed the exchange, looks like you stick to your guns well enough, while staying sensible and polite. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone created this nonsense, [8]200.21.69.99 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I hadn't noticed that. I suppose it's pretty much harmless, not sure what it's about, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the recent block of 216.165.158.7 (talk·contribs), I believe I know who the anon is a sockpuppet of. I have posted evidence at ANI. Let me know if you have any questions. FYI, Elonka 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to self: "Hmm, 'Luna Santin', I see that name practically everywhere... I wonder what the userpage for such a venerable administrator is like. Oh, a... hmm. An enormous sheep. Well then..."
I love it. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, glad to see somebody liked it. :) The old version was probably a bit more robust, but I've been itching for a change, and the sheep... ah... inspiring? Or something. :p Also, thanks for the revert. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the old version is much more inline with what I was expecting to see. :) No problem with the revert, more than happy. I think less than a minute between first edit and indefinite block is a personal record for me. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it'll be a cautionary tale, "Man, don't spend too much time on the wiki, you start doing craaaazy stuff with your userspace." – Luna Santin (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LS. I see you've attracted the attention of User:Ichträgtkeineschuhe and socks. I've tagged the latest with sockpuppet|blocked tags. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that's who it is. Declined some of their unblock requests, the other day. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 06:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HEY LUNA: How do you change image size when editing? Thanks from ChristusRex! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.2.48.70 (talk) 17 April 2007
Take a look at Help:Image, which will probably do a better job explaining that than I will. In short, add a parameter to the image link, such as "200px" to display an image 200 pixels wide. It takes a little practice, but not too much. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
and blue
and pink
) you might want to look at his proposal, too. Thanks! – Qxz 19:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
