User talk:Luna Santin

User	Talk	Contribs	My Sandbox	Improve Me!

Busier, this week. .

Welcome!

Welcome! Hello, Luna Santin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: User Pages The five pillars of Wikipedia Wikipedia in eight words How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style My FAQ Page Glossary What wikipedia is not Requested Articles Reference Desk Assume good faith Sandbox (This page is for testing) I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or an experienced wikipedian like Sango123 and JoanneB and leave your message on our talk page. Again, welcome! If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page Once you've become an experienced Wikipedian, please take your time to visit this page: WikiProjects Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day_

Omega models

Any chance you can tag those in the list I added. No one seems to be really objecting to the ones listed. Vegaswikian 20:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just tag all of the others. I'll note this on the Omega entry. Vegaswikian 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dean Lesher

Thanks for your input! I'm still a bit wet behind the ears, and I was wondering about that edit you made to my intro already.

No problem. I went to high school in Concord and worked for years in Walnut Creek, so when I saw the name "Dean Lesher" pop up on the New Articles page, I simply had to go poking around; checking out Contra Costa Times after that seemed obvious. And pay no attention to RichardBennett -- he's a thin-skinned newbie upset with my reversing some nonsense he added to a few articles. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay Robert Nash

The Jay Robert Nash article is having POV statements inserted by User:Thomist, who is also using a sockpuppet (which means there are not two independent editors inserting the POV sections). If you check out other edits by User:Thomist you will see that the editor has also been faulted for inserting unsourced POV in other places (see the discussion at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh for more, including the use of sockpuppets). I'm always happy to discuss and arrive at consensus with any editor over any article but in this case the editor refuses to provide any sources to back up the POV insertions and is using sockpuppets. As a result, consensus can not be achieved. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your revised article looks really good. Excellent work. If you ever need any assistance around Wikipedia, just drop me a line.--Alabamaboy 13:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I've been impressed with your attempts to mediate the Nash article. I also think your new version of the article has much improved the article and that we should go with it (with a few minor changes to the lead, as mentioned on the talk page). That said, I don't have any more time to spend discussing this issue with Root50, who now wants to delete the Carpinelli section altogether. As I said on the article's talk page, Root50 appears to have an ideological axe to grind against Nash. If Root50 could provide even one reliable source to back up what he/she is saying, I'd be ok with putting that info into the article. As it is now, I will not be taking any more part in this discussion. If Root50 wishes to take this discussion any further, he/she will have to do so through arbitration. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Help!

User:TheVirtualToolshed appears to have started their account for the sole purpose of advertising using their Userpage. I understand policy well enough to have an inkling that this is at best a circumvention of methods usually used against advertisements... but I haven't been around long enough to know what to do about it. Suggestions? Notices that I'm off-base? Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Report that user at WP:AN because they are a spam-only account. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quite fast. Luna Santin 10:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Interoute

Luna, hi. I am currently working on Interoute's Wikipedia article. I actually have permission to use this paragraph from the holder of the Interoute copyright. Webzilla has somehow lifted the interoute copyrigthed information. Thank you for your keen observation, and I have passed along this information to the copyrigth holder at interoute who I am sure will contact Webzilla. Is there any way that you could remove that tag from my article? Thanks so much!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KellyKinsella (talk • contribs) .

Luna,

My only proof is that I am currently an employee of the marketing department of interoute. I am not certain how to prove this. I have an interoute email address. Would that prove it? I am just desperate to fix this quickly because my boss would not be pleased if he happened to log onto wikipedia and see this giant flag on Interoute's definition page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhitneyEllis (talk • contribs) .

PS Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire is definitely my favorite of the series also!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhitneyEllis (talk • contribs) .

Hi. I've reviewed the Interoute article and, quite clearly and without doubt, the "article" is actually an advertisement. The choice of language used is clearly with marketing intent and, as such, meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a route to free soft marketing and the very fact that you are running it past your boss in the marketing department makes that clear. If a company is notable enough to have an article then it should be able to stand on its own merits as a NPOV article without puffery. The extant copy has been deleted. A replacement article that meets the standards we set will probably, of course, be acceptable. --AlisonW 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Advertising generally falls under #7 "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." and, in this case, the content was clearly a puff piece and totally POV. Looking at the 'article' I tried to see if something NPOV could be extricated from it, but frankly it seemed that the only thing left would be the name of the company! Once I saw that the creator had passed it by their boss at the company in the marketing department then it became a definite and clear deletion, similar to someone writing their own over-the-top biography on here. As I noted on the talkpages, if there is a good, sensible, NPOV article out there on this company I'm sure one will eventually appear. What was there wasn't it.--AlisonW 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:TheVirtualToolshed

Blocked. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My secret has been unveiled!

Oh dear. What shall I do now? Haha, hi there. It's been ages since we've spoken, I think. I think I said the exact same thing at Renaissance a long time ago, too... --Dalkaen^T/C 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Luna Santin! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Awarded for taking the time out to make a newbie feel welcome and somehow "appreciated". Thankyou Luna! Devious Viper 11:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:JustBenCrew

Very nice comment. Can I plagiarise it for the future? --Dweller 11:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, nice work. Matt Eason 11:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

CFD Category: Designated terrorist organizations underway

I thought you may be interested,

see here

Count Iblis 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

School storm

Thanks, Luna. I really feel quite distant from the article. My "hard feelings" are rather low-level, and I have no reason to contribute further to either talk page or article—my last note was quite a few days ago. However, I'm concerned about my friend, Andrew Jens; he would be a valuable WPian indeed, and he's making noises about never coming back.

I suppose that I'm disappointed in the attitudes of the admins connected with the storm.

Please let me know if I can help, but I doubt that I can. Your input would be very welcome.

Thank you again.

Tony 02:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

hi

Luna, thanks so much for your excellent management of the cabal thing. You do write well, so if you're inclined, your input to the FAC room would always be most welcome. There's a shortage of skilled reviewers of prose there, and it's been hard to maintain the standards of successful nominations.

Cheers Tony 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Would you support taking the Nash article issue to the mediation cabal or arbitration? Since I am an involved editor (although my only axe to grind is to keep the article NPOV) but you have already been acting in a mediation role, perhaps you could start the mediation process. Now that Carpinelli is involved again, this process just became more complicated since she has a strong POV she's trying to push with the article. I'll be honest--whatever the official mediation process agrees on I'll support. Best, --Alabamaboy 12:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't know what to make of all the screaming about the Nash article. Carpinelli (Polycarp7) keeps going on about it being Wikipedia's fault that her article at Catholic Exchange was pulled b/c the Nash article had referenced it. In addition the two main editors involved in this dispute, Polycarp7 and Root50, have basically only edited the Nash article at Wikipedia. Since they both seem to have either a personal connection to the article or a strong POV on it, I see no alternative to arbitration. Personally, I wish I'd never edited this article in the first place so I wouldn't have to deal with all of this. Anyway, I think the arbitration request would be stronger if we presented it together. If you want to start the process I'd back you up or, if you'd prefer, I can start it and hopefully you'd support it. If you'd prefer to run screaming from all of this, I'd also understand. :-).--Alabamaboy 18:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Andrewjens

Hi Luna, I was wondering if you could say a few kind words to User:Andrewjens who has been harassing User:Sumple, who is a participant in the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16_alumni_link: see User_talk:Sumple#Quote_of_the_moment. Many thanks. enochlau (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Luna, wanted to let you know about that incident, but I see enochlau has already posted here. Anyway, I am not happy with the way Andrewjens is insinuating that I am racist/antisemitic or whatever he's trying to do. --Sumple (Talk) 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

School storm (and worse)

Hi Luna Santin. Thanks for taking up the STHS case, and for your efforts so far. Sorry if my earlier attempts to put a more objective slant on things ended up inflaming the situation. :-( I've kept out of it for a few days, partly because of other commitments, but also to think through some of the issues. Unfortunately, it looks like things have taken a bit of a turn for the worse. I'm at a loss as to what to do now. I did have some comments about the "compromise" suggestion, but I might stay away for a while longer now. What do you think? I also had some things to say about enochlau. I do appreciate his efforts to protect pages from what he sees as vandalism, but the use of revert (and particularly "rollback") without leaving explanations on talk pages is, I think, one of the reasons why this whole thing started. WP:RV has some very wise words about revert/rollback, particularly with regard to how it might be perceived by the other editor. Anyway, enough rambling. And, enochlau, if you're reading this, please don't take offence. I'm only trying to figure out what happened here, rather than seeking to blame anyone. There are lessons to be learned by all of us. :-( Winterelf 08:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Jay Robert Nash. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Jay_Robert_Nash, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee.