User talk:Luna Santin

Talk – Sandbox – Blog

Welcome to my talk page! I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here. When leaving messages, please remember these easy steps: • Use a ==descriptive heading== • Use [[wikilinks]] when mentioning users and pages • Sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ to leave your name and date If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. Click here to leave me a message

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.

Bot

Thanks for the revert, I just noticed it as I was about to leave. I added a measure that tests the target (not destination) page for "vandalism" and causes the bot to ignore the move if that is the case. That should avoid cases like that, though a few random errors may still happen sometimes. It only revert new user moves to "vandal" names, so that shouldn't be that often, especially with this measure.Voice-of-All 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Help desk

I normally don't post things like this, but I'm in a bit of a jovial mood today. In regards to the question that you moved, I thought of another solutuion to that problem, but was afraid of violating WP:BEANS. I was wondering if anything like that happened to cross your mind? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page and for blocking that tiresome IP. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, thanks for this too. That will work. JungleCat talk/contrib 04:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW

I have replied to you on User talk:12.72.71.46. —12.72.71.46 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have again replied to you on User talk:12.72.71.46. I see nothing more to be said by me. —12.72.71.46 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(Cross-posted this to your talk page.) Huh. Fair enough, there's more history here than I realized. If you're still interested in pursuing your complaints, I'd recommend taking a few moments to compose a good pile of evidence (mainly links to diffs, showing both abuse and warnings for abuse, and such), and then start a thread at AN/I. While AIV does tend to get a faster response, it's really not the best place for that sort of complaint -- we have a very narrow definition of vandalism, and while I can sympathize with you, it's not absolutely clear that he's acting with the intent to harm Wikipedia. He thinks he's doing the right thing, you think you're doing the right thing, there doesn't seem to be a truly clear-cut answer -- that's the exact sort of situation suited to ANI. Just my two cents. Good luck, either way. Luna Santin 04:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether I had other edits such as those was an irrelevancy, though. The only thing relevant was whether my account of his actions were accurate. The problem here is that Arbustoo broke the ostensible rules of the institution. Yes, there is a narrow definition of vandalism, but he did plainly cross it; for example,

• Here he flags 12.72.68.43 as a possible single-purpose account, and here is the edit history of that account, which includes edits to Brian Flemming (no relation to the race) and to Solar. (Arbustoo made this insertion, after being cautioned, to prove that he could get away with it, and he was right.)

I linked to this edit at AIV (where one is supposed to be brief), but the admin didn't even examine the evidence; he just baldly declared that Arbustoo was not a vandal. It would be one thing, if administrators, assessing his character, gave him a warning or a mere slap-on-the-wrist (in spite of giving at least one editor, Devilmaycares, a 48-hour block for doing the same thing). But, instead, the admins are completely waiving the rules (and even the investigation) for Arbustoo, and threatening me with blocks and personally attacking me for trying to get the rules followed. I have no reason to expect that at AN/I the very same clique is going to behave substantially better. —12.72.73.61 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Those diffs you linked do look a bit suspect. I'll take some time to look into this in more detail, later. Let me know if he continues that sort of behavior. I'm really not convinced that such tagging is vandalism, but it could very well be disruptive, especially if he does it too often. There's part of the pitfall -- AIV is for really stinking obvious stuff, like adding "HURR HURR PENIS," and anything significantly more complex than that tends not to get acted on. AN/I also tends to get watched by a different crowd. In cases like this, I recommend being as civil as possible; it helps resolve the situation if possible, and if not, it makes it clear which person was playing nice and which wasn't. How-evah, I've got to get going, so we'll talk later, I imagine. Luna Santin 15:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And, given that he was making such edits, he knew that the original warning was not trolling; &c &c. He has learned how to work the admins as a tribe. Again: He broke the rules; admins have slapped me around for bringing that to their attention. I have no intention of doffing my hat and asking them for more over in AN/I. —12.72.73.61 16:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

While I can sympathize, strong reactions like that only help others build a case that you look like a troll. That's why I recommend staying as calm and openly level-headed as possible. Luna Santin 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever one wants to call one who has strong reactions (and “troll” is not the proper term), no reasonable person would say that someone were wrong because he or she had a strong reaction. If Wikipedia administrators, as a group, do not to look first at brute facts, then Wikipedia will simply be the outcome of a political process. Now, in fact, what you're perceiving as strong reactions are not that; they are, however, a rejection of political processes — been there, done that, seen what happens. :-/ —12.72.72.238 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point -- the two of you are in a conflict. It's difficult to tell who's good or bad in these sorts of conflicts, because there's too much yelling and anger. Several users have chosen to characterize you as trolling -- by getting angry, yelling, and talking anything to the effect of admin cabals, you're playing right into their hands. Your best move, in my opinion, is to be as cooperative as possible and earn the trust of your fellow editors. I'm not talking about right or wrong, good or bad; all I'm getting at, right now, is that the more of a sane, calm, rational team player you look like, the better chance you'll get an honest hearing. Just my two cents. Luna Santin 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I really haven't missed your point. I'm telling you that if I need to do that, then Wikipedia is already doomed to evolve into something with little merit. Wikipedia's admins, whenever they are wearing their admin caps, need to behave as scientists and scholars. (Whether one will behave that way is, of course, largely independent of whether one has or has not spent much time in academia or whatever.) If they won't focus on brute fact and points of logic, and instead engage in groupthink and focus on personalities, then I think that, within about two years, Wikipedia will have failed in its mission and generally be seen to have failed in its mission. —12.72.72.122 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I'm convinced that you're rational. I still don't entirely agree with you, but that's a debate to save for another day. ;) For now, let's get back to the matter at hand. Your IP range appears to be 12.72.0.0/16? It's unclear whether these people are you or not, but I've tracked down some users who contribute in there... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. If you're interested in contributing over a long period of time, I really do encourage getting an account, but that's your call. Some of those are almost definitely you (they've posted at the Murtha dispute), and a few have made contributions in other areas. I'm not particularly interested in censoring either of you at this time, but it looks to me like both (yes, both) of you need to stop throwing around accusations of vandalism; I'll ask Arbustoo to avoid tagging so many of your comments with {{spa}} in the interest of civility, but he should be able to speak his piece, which you could rebut. Ideally the two of you will stop edit warring and will instead settle down into dispute resolution and the use of talk pages. I know that content disputes are long, hard, and annoying, having been through some myself, but that looks to be what this is, as far as I can tell. Luna Santin 22:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If an IP has a limited range of edits it will be tagged as a SPA. Moreover, this type of stuff does not win sympathy. Note this IP is involved in two canidates running for election. This IP has continuly tried to remove another user's good faith edits. Rather than clean up that, the IP removes a news source and the content.

If this IP wants to contribute to wikipedia on a range of articles and not be confused with a SPA, she/he should get an account. Until then it looks as if this IP is pushing a POV on two articles related to one congressional race.

If my full edit history is examined for the Irey article, then one finds me first fighting pro-Irey rhetoric and then fighting anti-Irey rhetoric. For the former, look at my attempt to reason with MRMKJason (the blockquoted “Blogs and forums are for debating issues, not spinning facts.” is from one of his edit summaries). After MRMKJason had seemed to accept that his word-choice was at best questionable, C56C came along with a cooked transcript. Then H_ll broke loose as MRMKJason responded by returning to his earlier behavior, and C56C found an admin all too ready to believe a cooked version of the conflict over that transcript. —75.18.113.152 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This IP has called a long-time wikipedia adminstrator a liar when that admin. was trying to get a handle on IP's POV pushing. This is not acceptable. Arbusto 22:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. They've done some stupid stuff -- though I note the most recent of those diffs is from about two days ago, and some are older. I guess what I'm getting at is that if they'd like to contribute legitimately, we may as well let them; if they regress or keep pulling crap, I'll be happy to block them. So a "second chance" is what I'm looking for, I guess. Luna Santin 22:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking further into your comments, I don't think you realize this started at the Irey article nor that I reported it at the AN/I days ago.[6] And told this user where to deal with it a week ago.[7] It is very telling that he is doing it on your talk page and feeding you parts of what really happened instead of on AN/I. There is a wider spectrum to this. Arbusto 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I did see the Irey thread on AN/I (at least, assuming there's only one). The user's refusal to consider AN/I is also a bit suspicious, I've noticed; I encouraged them to do the same. I'll readily admit I'm not aware of the full history, here, but it at least seems like a content dispute gone sour, unless I'm missing something. Luna Santin 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure its a content dispute because everything is in there now. I don't really know what this user's problem is. Arbusto 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could make a request at third opinions or the Mediation Cabal on the issue, to get more voices involved. If I'm reading the situation correctly, it looks like you consider a particular quotation/section relevant, and they don't? Luna Santin 23:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. If you note this happened October 10th and this on the 11th while the content issue happened a day later on 12 October 2006. This user doesn't like the SPA template. Arbusto 23:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the best reaction, on their part, but they do appear to have contributions in multiple areas: [8] [9] [10] (found using VP), and over a longer span of time than I first thought: [11] [12] (I found those last ones digging through the history at John Murtha, dating at least back to early August 2006). Luna Santin 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your first example that IP has editted at two articles. So it makes sense that it is "Possible single purpose account: (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic" and should be tagged as such. As the IP noted he/she gets assigned a new IP[13] so how do we know the spectrum of 12.72.72*** is all one user? (You have in fact referred to these IPs as "they" above.)

I can't tell, and so I've tagged a IP with a limited range as "Possible single purpose account: (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic". If this IP doesn'tike it she/he should get an account and edit a range of articles. Arbusto 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the connection is between these -- what do General Eisenhower, the wife of an attorney general, a BBC radio show host, and John Murtha all have to do with each other? It would be ridiculous to suggest that all users from 12.72.0.0/16 are this same user, but I haven't made that claim; I believe that all of the IPs I linked to are apparently this same person, because they've all made edits related to the current subject of discussion, in addition to their edits in other areas. Yes, they should probably get an account, and yes, they've been incivil in the past, but it's important to note that your continued use of {{spa}} will only aggravate the situation. Neither past failings of judgement nor failure to register an account strike me as reasons to ignore legitimate complaints or disputes. Luna Santin 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked how they are all linked? Politics: Making Republicans look better than Democrats. See Martha Beall Mitchell, notice how there were good edits, but also[14] Notice how an article titled Martha Mitchell, the Watergate scandel was removed? Could the 12.72.*** IP be the same person as the 70.166*** IP? Well one of your examples of a non-Murtha-Irey edit is see edit summary "Rvt latest attack from Chico-based vandal", which is similiar to see summary "Revert to undo spin attack from Chico editor". Note the 12 and 70 IP's editting on the Irey talk.

A limited range of articles. There are more examples, but I've already wasted too much time on this IP. Arbusto 00:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Talk:Martha Beall Mitchell, and then go to the site for which I removed the link. It's brief, so you can read it quickly. And you can see that, just as I said, it contains major errors. A those-who-are-not-for-me-are-against-me leads Arbusto to presume that I am a Republican. I haven't voted for any Republican since 1986, nor a Republican Presidential candidate since 1980 (when I voted in a primary for one who had withdrawn to voted against the front-runner). Arbusto seems lost in POV. —75.18.113.152 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You can use masculine pronouns in reference to me. (And I am rather pleased with how much I improved that article on MM.) —75.18.113.152 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a reaction on my part. When I began dealing with that passage, Arbusto hadn't yet touched it. If there was any stalking here (and it might have been just chance coincidence), then it was by him. I removed that passage for exactly the reasons that I explained: most of it was redundant, part of it (the claim by Abizaid) didn't seem to be relevant, and the rest was bald claims — not an attributed quotes but a bald claims — such as that Murtha was the soul and conscience of the military. Maybe Arbusto doesn't see what is wrong with such things; but, again, if there was a reaction (in Murtha) here then it was on his part. —75.18.113.152 02:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it's merely a dispute on the history of a content dispute, because you've bailed on having a passage that claims that Murtha is the soul and conscience of the military, and there is now a sensible passage in the article (which reports Woodward's words as such). Are you going to pursue that dispute while insinuating that there is something wrong with my responding to your pursuit? (Alternately, is the Mediation Cabal going to give a d_mn about a dispute on the history of a content dispute?) The only reason that I've continued this discourse with this admin is because he's attempting reasonable discourse. I don't generally walk away from that, even when it's moot. —75.18.113.152 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it proceeded from my having various other complaints basically ignored in AN/I and being told by an admin to use the route that I later used for Arbusto. (In that earlier case, it actually worked. The rules and procedure around here seem to change with the wind.) —75.18.113.152 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only stupid on the assumption of a particular set of objectives. In fact, there are a number of options here. And what I am doing is trying to get appropriate edits made without accepting what I regard as corrupt and corrupting protocols. You're probably correct that I could get more of the former done if I didn't respect that side constraint, but I operate from considerable first-hand experience in participating in such protocols and what really results. (I ask you to remember what I say now in a couple of years, when you see what has become of Wikipedia.) —75.18.113.152 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that admin stepped into a three-way edit war between an anon and two logged-in users. One logged-in user used a few dirty tricks such as linking to diffs such that a series of diffs by the two other editors (one another logged-in editor) seemed to be by the anon. The admin locked out only the anon, without attempting to query the anon, claimed that the anon had failed to discuss edits (when almost the only discussion was by the anon), and then the admin didn't act to fix a single one of his mistakes. (The admin walked away after the anon presented a systematic analysis of the extent to which the falsifications that he'd been fighting were indeed falsifications.) —75.18.113.152 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So the 12.72.** is now 75.18.***. I am still convinced this user is a WP:SPA, and will be tagged as such if the range of articles is limited. Arbusto 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. No matter what the range of articles I edit may be, Arbusto will use the tag as a means of attack. —75.18.113.152 00:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Arb, you haven't yet made a case that all of the edits are related to "making Republicans look better than Democrats." Fixing a ref on a BBC radio personality's page certainly doesn't appear relevant to the accusation. While the edits to Mitchell's article did indeed remove a reference to Nixon's skullduggery, they replaced it with another reference, they explained their removal on the talk page, and nobody has disagreed or refuted their reasoning since. I'm not sure how his edits to Eisenhower and German POWs reflect the POV-pushing nightmare you want me to see, as again no one has disagreed with those edits for a few days. On the other hand, attacking users and admins is pretty much unacceptable. So: you both need to start playing nice, or this can and probably eventually will make its way to the Arbitration Committee. I heartily encourage the both of you to seek ways to compromise with each other -- 12.72.*.*/75.18.*.*: please register an account to appease Arbustoo and demonstrate your variety of interests, and please avoid anything approaching trolling in the future; Arbustoo: please avoid biting and be aware that continued use of {{spa}} can be considered incivil; both of you: please assume good faith and consider dispute resolution and/or requests for comment. That's all for now. Luna Santin 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I could careless if this user gets an account or not. I can careless about what articles he edits. However, those two factors might result in certain tags. This user expired good faith a while ago with partisan hackery on the canidates pages. Arbusto 03:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why everybody needs to play nice. That was in August. We're now about halfway through October. Please let go of the past and work with each other. Luna Santin 03:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this attack was a few days ago and this partisan hackery was admitted a recently. I guess this closes another case. You could cut people with a long contribution history a break, and be a little more stern with people who so clearly have an agenda. This is disappointing. Arbusto 04:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at each of those links:

• “attack” — Cautioned him that I would report his indiscriminant tagging as vandalism.
• “this partisan hackery” — My cross-through of my own comment below.
• “another” — Arbusto complaining that his warnings aren't heeded.
• “who so clearly have an agenda” — Again that strike-through.

I find this evidence(?) bizarre. —12.72.71.3 06:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Arb, he reported you to AIV -- do you remember what happened after that? Nothing happened to you, and he got yelled at for making a bad report, and for being incivil. I haven't forgotten that. Both of you have thrown superfluous accusations of vandalism over what should be a simple content dispute. Wasn't it you who called him a dick, just today? Hasn't it been you who constantly eggs him on with SPA tagging, in spite of evidence to the contrary? And you, 12.72, why so eager to make Arbustoo look bad? Why so hesitant to report to AN/I, so untrusting of other users, explaining that you wouldn't even register an account because you'd be "stalked"? I'm getting impatient because neither of you seems to be even admitting the possibility of good faith. If I continue to be frustrated, one or both of you may find yourselves blocked. It's time to work together to resolve your differences and find a solution. Play. Nice. Luna Santin 09:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• “And you, 12.72, why so eager to make Arbustoo look bad?” — I wasn't out to make him look bad; I thought that he already looked very bad.
• “Why so hesitant to report to AN/I,” — As I said, my attitude towards AN/I developed from having tried it without success, only to get ignored except for one admin who explained that for action I should use AIV, which use was in that case then successful.
• “so untrusting of other users,” — I'm a social scientist, and certainly not a utopian; I see the incentive system here and how it would be expected to work. And I've indeed seen editors behaving exactly as per such expectations.
• “explaining that you wouldn't even register an account because you'd be ‘stalked’?” — I've seen stalking. And you and I both know that AN/I and edit summaries have lots of complaints about it.

Look, the dust settled, and at John Murtha what happened to the passage at issue? The parts that I said should go because of redundancy are gone; the parts that I said were unacceptable bald statements are no longer bald statements; the part that I said was irrelevant is gone. (The fate of the cooked transcript at Diana Irey was quite similar.) And Arbusto is furious, trying to get you to act against me, telling you that he will continue to war against me with tags. Meanwhile, what am I saying that I'll do against him? I've explained that I regarded my discussion with you as moot, continued only out of respect for your desire to discuss things reasonably. When I was disagreeing with your suggestions, was I ever saying “No, the way that I will get Arbusto is…”? When he called me a dick, did I use a counter-insult, or report him to A-whatever? What are you demanding of me? that I give him a big hug? —12.72.72.229 13:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that a potentially useful way of summarizing much (though not all) of what I have to say to you is: “I'm not here for community; I'm here for the encyclopedia.” Wikipedia wasn't proposed for the former, which is why “anyone” can edit it. —12.72.72.229 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let sleeping dogs lie, provided they stay more or less asleep. That's really all I want -- both of you have done or said what I would consider some iffy stuff, but if the situation cools down, that's the main idea. As far as I can tell, the situation is calmed down enough to keep me happy. I don't need flowers and puppies to drop from the sky, only cooperation between two people who otherwise appear to be very good editors; for now, we look to have that happening. Luna Santin 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Who would catch the poor puppies, in any event? —12.72.72.229 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I think we need to start a WikiProject. Luna Santin 18:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(I'm wonder how my edits concerning Brian Flemming (again from a middle ground, in that case between Devilmaycares and Laurence Boyce), Caramel, Pederasty would fit into Arbusto's exploded theory.) —75.18.113.152 01:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I recognize and explicitly acknowledge that your request that I register an account is a request, made very politely. But, on the one hand, if anonymous editting is really unsuitable to Wikipedia (and I am not convinced that it is), then they ought to be prohibitted; and, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, the principal effect of logging-in would be to make me more stalkable (which is why I'll resist showing you edits made from even more IP numbers), in the context of dealing with dedicated gamers. (I note that Arbusto began warring against me in John Murtha after I objected to his tagging-up of the Irey talk page.) —75.18.113.152 01:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, examine my actual edits to Eisenhower and German POWs. How do they make anyone look good? or bad? They are just clean-up of the mark-up, a spelling fix, and so forth. —75.18.113.152 01:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Okay, you saw that. Sorry. —75.18.113.152 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*

Personal attack. —75.18.113.152 03:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a personal attack, it's one of Wikipedia's policies. Sasuke-kun27 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is a statement of one of Wikipedia's policies; his use of it was as a personal attack. (Note that a hammer is not an assault, and has legitimate use far removed from assault.) —75.18.113.152 03:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Ion-weapon and Communism

The entry for communism is inaccurate. It does not speak of the violence caused by communism. It does not have any criticism whatsoever. I will place my text at the bottom, do not remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ion-weapon (talk • contribs) .

I've reverted the change and followed up on User talk:Ion-weapon. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock ...

... I believe that Google accelerator was the culprit (well, actually, MyWikiBiz was the culprit). For a little more detail see my talk page. -Dmh 04:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:JohnnyICON and User:JohnnyIOON

Could be so, though to similar anyway. If he/she asks for unblock will do so if it's before I hit the sack. If so feel free :)--Dakota 06:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was wondering what was taking him so long to vandalize it again.... -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I really have to wonder what people who attack that article, and Westboro Baptist Church, and Communism and other articles, think they're accomplishing. It's not like vandalizing a Wikipedia article affects the subject of the article.

BTW, I saw the comments from User talk:Ion-weapon on your page, so I followed up with him. It did not go smoothly. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User block question

I noticed you blocked a user account who had done blatant vandalism in his/her 4 edits, but had only been given a bot notice and test1. Can accounts (not IPs, obviously) that have only blatant vandalism edits be blocked permanently even if they haven't vandalised after a "final"-type warning? I'm not questioning your action, but wondering if this would fall under 'vandalism only account'.

I know one such account won't make much difference, but I'm wondering if I should report such to AIV in the future.

Thanks for your hard work. TransUtopian 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and recommendation! TransUtopian 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:66.244.223.234

Thanks a lot for blocking this guy, He really was getting on my nerves vandalizing my user page for 10 minutes :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING and Nizkor Project

My comments on the Nizkor site were the truth. Fine I won't change the main page. But, the discussion section should be free for all views. That man has systematically destroyed my life. Is it not better I be able to refute myself online then to handle the matter in a fateful way, in person, in BC, Canada at his home. I've had years of therapy, I feel I should be able to lead a normal life, yet he haunts me like some tattoo across my face. It's best that I be allowed to speak my side of the story. Let this go. Prevent a tragedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdranetz (talk • contribs) 14 October 2006.

What to do?

I watch Abington Heights School District and it has been under attack by vandals lately (you reverted it recently). Besides IP addresses, there are four vandalism only user accounts involved: User:ThisisCarl, User:ThePhantomofthewiki, User:ZomgPANTHER, and User:SeAmNiNjA. Can they be blocked?

There is also one semi-useful account that also has vandalized User:Breakdown2218 (who says "I like to contribute to the Wii page and vadalize (sic) my school's page" on his user page), but this account at least makes useufl edits much of the time.

What has me concerned is that tonight they started putting in death threats [15]. While I doubt they are serious, you can't be too careful nowadays, so I sent an email to the school district.

What else should be done? Can / should the whole page be semi-protected? Thanks for any help, Ruhrfisch 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping with this - I will let you know if there are any more developments. I appreciate the assistance very much, Ruhrfisch 14:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Impersonator?

You might want to check out User talk:Glen S Luna Santin TheProject (aeropagitica) Misza13 Golbez. WODUP (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

hellow

well i thought it would be a good iteda on pooop well all the poop with 2 o's were not even on poop i thought if possible isomeone is doing a report on poop but well alot of it is true gross but usally true but well it would be a good idia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angleoflove2 (talk • contribs) .

Prussian Blue

Damn...I was watching for it, and still, AntiVandalBot reverted it and you blocked him before I had a chance to even revert it. The dude really needs to get a new hobby. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are aware that AntiVandalBot is a BOT, and not an ACTUAL USER, right? Sasuke-kun27 02:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Usually that particular vandal tries to be more subtle, keeping to things that AntiVandalBot won't catch. And the last several vandalisms have used intentionally innocuous and misleading edit summaries to try to sneak it by. Apparently he lost it when I reverted his first nonsense in seconds, so he knew sneaky wouldn't work. The ironic thing here is I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of those girls...besides the ugliness of what they sing about, they have, um, no talent. (Just to see what all of the shouting was about, I watched one of their videos. No Grammy in their future.) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that by "The dude...", you meant AVB. Sorry. I'm gonna stop talking now (I don't feel like filling Luna's talk page with any more of my nonsense =P). Sasuke-kun27 02:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

{{db-nonsense}} :o Luna Santin 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. No, I approve of AntiVandalBot's hobby. The dude in question is the one with the unhealthy fixation on a pair of teenage girls. He's about to come off a 48-hour block on another IP for exactly the same vandalism. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bruderschaft deletion...

Hello. It seems you deleted the Bruderschaft article, but it doesn't say why you deleted it. Would be nice to know why =p. Torte 13:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

– Thanks for the quick reply! I was more then anything just curious to why you deleted it. If I can gather up some good information I'll rewrite it :P. Torte 20:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Different Matter

Could you look at this diff please. —12.72.72.229 16:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just now also asked Admin:Rogerd to look at it. —12.72.72.229 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. :) IP just about blanked their talk page. Tagged as possible sock. Last contrib was 13 October, last block was 22 August for 3RR. Is it just a case of blanking their talk page, or is there something deeper I should be looking for? Luna Santin 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's just that page blanking, followed by another edit that did not correct the blanking. —12.72.72.229 18:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. Restored. Luna Santin 18:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon users editing semi-protected pages

Hi, as you could see in Minotaur and Labyrinth, an anon user managed to alter the article content even though it's semi-protected. Any idea why this happened? - ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. I think the guy who tagged it is an admin, maybe he just forgot to actually protect the pages. - ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it. I don't know if this is the same person from before, there's been lots of chicken-switching from AOL proxies and it might just be the same user (I've been reverting/warning them for 2 days now and they always come back). I'll let you know if they strike again. Thanks for your help! - ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like they're back. - ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had just added the pages to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

lol

Thanks for your concern on my talk/user page. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I don't want all my info free to the world. --Snafuu 05:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I love your straight to the point "Please don't do that."

Autoblock

Thanks for unblocking me. I think S4110791 should probably be unblocked also. The login is from the University of Queensland and the username has the form of a UQ student number, also used as an email address. JQ 06:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

New user creation log

Probably nothing, maybe something. Who knows, but if you're bored you might watch these recent new users. The first batch might be a school project, like "Media Studies 101" or something. The second lot is perhaps just someone who can't decide? - 152.91.9.144

• 0101tiffin06 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 0101colin06 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 0101tonykung06 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 0101nialeung06 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Light novel Bungaku (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Lightnovel bungaku (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Light Novel bungaku (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Raitonoberubungaku (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Laitonoberubungaku (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Laito noberu bungaku (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Laito Noberu Bungaku (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Bev Harris

I added some references to the article and removed the prod. There are two New York Times articles and an HBO documentary about her work to support notability. Please take a look and see if your prod reasons were addressed. Thanks for your efforts to make Wikipedia better!Edison 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Reality" Article

I am afraid that nearly all of this article is uncited. I ask you to remove it and if you don't, why not?128.84.178.76 21:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)