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.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tomasthetankengine

You archived it. Um, why? The socks were marked as 'likely', but no action has been taken - no checkuser done, no blocks or exoneration. I'm not sure it's fair in either direction to be honest. Dibo ^{T | C} 11:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon ran a checkuser -- that's where the {{likely}} indicator came from. Cases are generally archived three days after CU response, this one's been up for four. As is mentioned on the WP:RFCU frontpage, the checkuser case pages are traditionally concerned only with the checkuser process, itself -- administrative actions can be undertaken by any administrator, or requested/discussed at the admin noticeboards. I would volunteer to do this, for you, at this point, but I'm not familiar with this particular situation, and I'm a bit too sleep deprived to go for any tough judgement calls, at the moment. Feel free to post at AN if you feel any blocks or such are appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I didn't know that. Dibo ^{T | C} 11:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a little confusing, definitely. :) I'll probably stumble off to sleep, here, in a few moments, but if you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Dibo ^{T | C} 09:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All loose ends tied up, thanks again! You've been really helpful. Dibo ^{T | C} 05:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it allowed?

Luna, is using multiple accounts in a positive way sockpuppetry? By that I mean, will doing this:

• Helping Wikipedia's articles with more than one account
• Allowing certain accounts to be constructively editing on different articles so as to organize work on the project

And NOT doing this:

• Using accounts to cause disruption of any sort
• Using accounts to gain the upper hand in a dispute
• Voting multiple times on an election of any sort
• Circumventing a block (not that I would get blocked, of course)

still result in a block? Just out of curiosity. LOZ: OOT 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Provided the accounts don't interact or do anything dishonest, it's usually not a problem. The real problems with sockpuppets come up when people use them to have several voices in a discussion, or to evade 3RR, things like that. To avoid any chance of trouble, it's sometimes good to be very open about the socks, perhaps labelling them on their userpages. But WP:SOCK should go into more detail on this. Not all sockpuppetry is inherently bad, we just spend most of our time in that area focusing on the times it is. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And now I find that I can't do that because User:Ryulong directly blocked my shared IP Address and account creation until October 7. I wish I had my own IP address. I wish people would stop vandalizing Wikipedia. It really gives us bad publicity.

But your efforts are exceptional beyond exceptional. I'm wondering though, have I done anything to vandalize or damage Wikipedia that you have noted as a possible mistake? LOZ: OOT 06:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Luna, I just created a new account (User:Rouge Crimson). Are there some administrators who will block me for this? I know you won't, but are there some who will? LOZ: OOT 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not creating the account, necessarily, but more what you do with it. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To organize my work here better. LOZ: OOT 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

YOUR COMMENT ON RYULONG's page about conflict of interest

Well, if there is a conflict of interest what is it? How can I fix it so that there is no more conflict of interest? I don't understand why there is a problem with me posting this article if the purpose of the article is to provide people with credible information. Please tell me what the conflict of interest is and how I am supposed to take care of it and remove it so that my article is uploaded and left alone. I personally do not see why I am having trouble with this and would like to be helped in solving the problem.

QuakeSim 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way, if you will -- I'm somebody who's committed over a year of my time to Wikipedia. If I write a blog entry about Wikipedia, or if I go on forums and post about Wikipedia, am I a neutral source of information? Would I be posting to those forums for the sake of the people on the forums, or for the sake of Wikipedia? As I said, I haven't read up on this particular case, so I'm afraid I can't comment very specifically, but please try to understand the angle Ryulong is coming from, I suspect an angle that's wary you may be one more in a long string of people working for marketing departments and other, similar interests. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Hi, Luna, as you may see for yourself, a sock of User:Bonaparte is reverting my edits en masse. Can we have him blocked for a while? --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, is that who that is? Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He went crazy after his sock User:BOT2008BOT was exposed and banned. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dajcn

Dajcn (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I have given an "only warning" for their impersonation of you, and what I consider severe trolling. Do you this this is appropriate? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly that sort of behavior is problematic; in this case, it's problematic and not their first account, for the night, so I went ahead and blocked. In other news, we're up to {{user16}} in templates? Wow, heh. :p Thanks for the note, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I made {{User16}}. It sorta has the whole lot mushed in together :) Back to the subject - thanks for blocking. Nearly gave me a heart attack there... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a really weird feeling that he's similar to Dicjie for some reason....Especially after he was blocking people using your name. --DarkFalls ^talk 10:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt we've seen the last of him... --DarkFalls ^talk 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Thank you both. ;) I'll play this one by ear, if I happen to spot them again. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism And Slander

User:Scjessey continues to vandalize my talk pages as well as using slandering remarks he deletes my suggestions in the discussion pages and gives false warnings and personal attacks in my talk pages I complained before but no action was taken please respond.Hightilidie 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is, of course, a complete falsehood. User:Hightilidie is a link spammer, adding the same link to multiple pages connected to web development and associated technologies. I have followed the proper warning procedure, which eventually resulted in User:Hightilidie receiving the 24 hour ban you gave. User:Hightilidie responded by placing a vandalism warning on my talk page, which I have removed. I am providing this additional information purely for your reviewing convenience. -- Scjessey 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Again more slandering remarks the same link was not posted to every article for your information a link was only submitted to the appropriate information for each article that would have been beneficial to the user. How come you didn't delete this or send me a false warning again User:Scjessey. Hightilidie 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Appears that User:Hightilidie is blocked at this time; sorry I wasn't around to offer a quicker response. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 20:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Hell

I haven't violated 3RR myself have I? I've made that mistake in the past (fortunately I learned before a block was needed and have tried carefully to avoid doing so now.

Looks like you're at 2 or 3 on all but one of the pages I'm looking at, currently. If any more sockpuppets crop up, I'll deal with them right quick; otherwise, it's probably best if this all settles down for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

2 or 3 3RR violations you mean? -WarthogDemon 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Errr, reverts. ;) An important distinction, though, heh. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to avoid reverts where it'd be directly reverting to mine (though I'm not sure if that'd be canvassing...) -WarthogDemon 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a new one: User:TurkmenstanSSR. -WarthogDemon 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha. o.o I see PPG got it. Thanks for letting me know, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

in response

Of course, you are absolutely right about wikipedia not being a battleground, and I will stop my "battle" accordingly. But I do want to bring to your attention the actions of my worthy opponent downwards. It seems like a fairly high percentage of his edits are aimed solely at causing people grief under the guise of enforcing policy. I will be the first to admit that I have not behaved admirably, and his actions do not excuse mine. But a look at his talk page shows countless incidents where people have tried in vain to be reasonable with him on matters only to met with a smug, condescending remark for their trouble. I just wanted to get his attention and cause him some of the consternation he has caused others, but it's over, i'm willing to be the bigger man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KatoABJV (talk • contribs) 15 August 2007.

Certainly I can look into that sort of thing; I'm not at all concerned that two people are disagreeing, that happens quite a bit and is usually a sign of a healthy community. But these disagreements and conflicts need to be resolved productively (and peacefully), whenever possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, but this isn't really a disagreement, but a pattern of anti-social behavior I've observed coming from this editor. But it's over now, as long as he refrains from his rude comments, I have no issue with letting this go. KatoABJV 03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry to bring you into this, but he's at it again, I added a perfectly reasonable and verifiable edit to the Don Mattingly article that was verifiable just by typing his name into google and Downwards deleted it saying it wasn't verifiable. I thought we had put this behind us, but I guess it isn't personal as he does this constantly to everyone. Instead of verifying facts that aren't cited he just removes them to vex other editors, in my case out of spite. Not really what we need in our community. KatoABJV 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hm. Dropped off a message on their talk page. On the one hand, it wasn't sourced (I see you added a source, thank you), but on the other hand, I'm concerned by anything that could even be construed as stalking. I'll see what they have to say about it. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, note that I am certainly not the first to have this issue with downwards, on his own talk page there are countless others all asking the same questions, "why did you delete my edits repeatedly?" "why do you constantly say this is vandalism?" etc. It seems very small minded and pigheaded, granted I was immature in my response to what I saw, but I was pretty disgusted with his behavior and I stopped as soon as I was warned about it. It's just the way he talks to people so smug, and arrogant and his responses to any questions are just the same way.

My new account

Here I am in my alternate account. Now you can call me sort of a hippie, man.

Just kidding. But I have to ask you something. Am I allowed to edit the same page as my other account does? Not that I'd want to, but still, in case I accidentally edit the ones I want to edit in the other account. The Rouge 06:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it; if you accidentally do so, a comment to the talk page clarifying the mistake couldn't hurt. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as I recommend on my main talk page. Luna, I've changed my mind; I don't want a second account. Just this one, that's all. What do I do with the other one? LOZ: OOT 06:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You can just avoid using it. If you're really sure, you could scramble the password. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The account is lost in a misbegotten password, doomed to wander through limbo for all eternity! Thanks for the suggestion! LOZ: OOT 07:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ksy92003/Discussion

Hey there, Luna Santin. I haven't been able to say this yet, but thank you for stepping in and doing something with this issue.

Anyway, I'm coming to you about this because you are the user who blocked Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and I believe you are aware of the situation, as well as my userfied version of the discussion which Jmfangio took me to ANI for. I'm asking these questions on the advice of Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) who suggested I ask you about this for future reference. Below are the two points, quoted from Baseball Bugs on my talk page (with minor changes to make it read as first-person as opposed to second-person, which was what it was originally posted by Baseball Bugs, as he was talking to me; there are too many brackets with the changes made to show what I changed from what Bugs said, so I bolded the changes for your convenience):

1. Is there any issue with what I posted at User:Ksy92003/Discussion?
2. Does the 3-revert rule apply to me on my own talk page or userfied subpage, where the discussion currently rests?

If I could get responses to either/both of these questions as soon as possible, most preferably before Jmfangio's block expires Wednesday night so I can prepare for his return, that would be greatly appreciated, Luna Santin. Ksy92003(talk) 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Important questions. ;) On the first, I'm not aware of any problem at the moment, but that's not quite the same thing as saying there isn't or couldn't be a problem. For example, if you made a habit of quoting particular user(s) out of context or in some way which could be construed as malicious or harassment, that might be a problem. Keeping such pages can be controversial, especially if they become any sort of "hitlist" or slam book -- it's somewhat common to prepare an RfC in userspace, but if it becomes a habit to do so without ever filing the RfC, that can be a similar problem. It also depends on your prior interactions with the people involved, and your apparent motives, of course. So there are quite a few factors in play, there. On the second question, 3RR is usually relaxed in the userspace of the associated user, but depending on circumstances (removal of MfD or other important process tags, say) it may still apply, and I'd recommend being careful about it anyway, just to be on the safe side. It's difficult to be mindful of the ways various people may interpret events and behaviors. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll say I wasn't expecting a reply tonight. I requested page protection at WP:RFPP, just in case. I don't know if that will do anything; it would serve no purpose, I suppose, because then even I wouldn't be able to edit it, and that would just be stupid... but I'm so tired right now; I removed the WP:RFPP because if I fully protect it, then I can't edit it, and it serves no purpose at all then, and semi-protecting won't do anything because Jmfangio could still vandalize it.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to deal with this issue; sorry for dragging you into it. But nice to meet you. Ksy92003(talk) 08:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Attack pages

Just a quick note, when deleting attack pages such as ShanE159, sometimes the default "content was 'blah blah blah'" summary is a slight WP:BLP problem. Doesn't seem like a big deal in this case, just something I happened to notice when deleting it a second time (somebody's persistent). In any case, nice to run into you, and keep up the good work. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Luna, and thanks for letting me know, I didn't realise I'd left the default summary there.

Thanks, and you too! Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for your reply at the help desk (sockwatch suggestion). Building it looks like work, but I might actually try that. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually too hard -- once you build a list of pages, the toolbox on the left side of the screen has a "related changes" link that'll show all recent changes to all linked pages. My version is a little more robust, but yours doesn't need to be, unless you want to. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

for showing me about {{notice}} I appreciate it! SLSB talk • contrib 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Commission Association

Thanks for reverting that vandalism. The last thing this article needs is more random IP edits deleting whole sections. We've been trying to make careful edits within consensus for the last few weeks, and the vandalism was threatening to ruin our work. Nswinton\^talk 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Report at WP:AN/I

I made my first ever actual report at AN/I. WP:ANI#User:Chatchien LOZ: OOT 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Luna, allow me to ask. Does POV stand for Policy of Verification, or Point of View? LOZ: OOT 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually, point of view is referred to as NPOV, but POV is still commonly used. I've never heard Policy of Verification before. Ksy92003(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bushido

I jumped the gun with my vandalism report (which is why I reverted it a minute later). It appears that Bushido did indeed hastily put the images back on his page after I took them off a 2nd time however he reversed his reversal after reading my warning. I'm not sure a lock is necessary.--Dr who1975 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ack. Serves me right -- I skimmed the diffs and figured I'd seen enough, but I had missed the most important one. I've unprotected, for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

New Covenant Theology

I want to know why you removed the link, http://www.newcovenanttheology.com as a link to gospel preaching without the law. You need to realize that no current teacher attempts to set himself apart from the legalists, and that includes Jon Zens, who may say he believes in gospel preaching, but does not set himself apart in the way the 1646 people did. I am being true to the beliefs of that confession. No one else is. Gary Bgamall

Mainly because the user who added it, 76.106.160.189 (talk · contribs), appeared to be a likely spammer, and was pasting identical or similar links into several articles; such behavior can be problematic, especially if the user refuses to discuss their changes. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for moving my page back to normal and blocking BIGCANDICEFAN. However, I am having trouble since the vandalism. My user page and user talk page no longer appear on my relevant changes watchlist. What has gone wrong? - Deep Shadow 04:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Not sure why that might be happening; check if the move took the pages off of your watchlist, maybe? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My user talk page now appears, but my user page doesn't. It's still on the watchlist, but it just doesn't appear on the changes list. - Deep Shadow 05:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That fixed it. Thanks again. :) - Deep Shadow 05:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good. :p I wasn't sure if it would, but figured it might. Cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. I just thought I would let you know that the user you indef blocked, BIGCANDICEFAN, has returned as CandiceLOVER. The evidence is here. First they post using the IP address of 66.157.50.115, then an account similar to before removes the IP post with a post of their own. The account was also created 9 minutes after the IP post, and their first edit was 2 minutes after that. - Deep Shadow 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I've blocked the account. Autoblock should hit their IP address for a bit. They may be back, though; let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I sent an email back to both you and that other address you gave me with that information. Thanks for your help. Hopefully this will save everyone sometime down the line. Imsaguy 06:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. We'll hopefully have that taken care of, tonight or tomorrow. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PostSecret spin-offs extlink list

There's been some discussion about it on the talk page. Seems to be a general feeling that there's too much and too listcrufty, but no consensus about if any should be included (and if so, how many or which ones). Might want to comment there to avoid reviving a long-running slow-motion edit-war. DMacks 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I took a quick glance at the history and didn't spot a fast edit war, but on a second look, it does look like a slower one going on. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Situation you addressed last night

Again, I'm back at where i started with these editors. Said user continues to comment on my talk page, and then commented on an RFC i had filed against Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). I made a response to that comment and left it at that. He then jumped in on a question i had asked, i gave him a simple reply and then he replied again. I posted something and quickly thought better of it and removed it before he ever made another comment here - it was done with in seconds despite his statement that he had already typed up a response. Regardless, nothing had been posted when i removed the information and he put it back in there. (we're talking within seconds of the post - i removed it). This is ludicrious. These people won't leave me alone. I have told them both millions of times - the only reason i'm editing the template they want to change is because they won't leave it alone and it has massive implications. He is now onto the 3RR violations - this is ridiculous and even though I haven't touched his copy of my comments to his talk page (despite my well known objections to their allowed use) - i'm getting fed up with having to deal with this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not worth edit warring over; the idea of an RfC is to hear everybody out, after all, isn't it? Unless there's some pressing reason these comments shouldn't be present. On the flip side, I don't know if there's a pressing reason the comments need to be present, either -- it takes two to edit war, and it seems like everybody could put a bit more effort into being accomodating, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again...

Jmfangio has once again began to harass me for no reason. This began at Dick Lane (American football) where I was removing the links in the infobox for a lot of players (I eventually completed two of 32 teams). However, Jmfangio doesn't agree with my edits, reverted me several times, and reported me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Making Contentious edits while content dispute is in place. I gave him a quote from WP:DATE (which I actually see now that it has been removed; here is the quote:)

If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006 [to 2006 in sports], although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination.

This supports that removal of the links is perfectly acceptable, and I've given him this quote (which was on User talk:Aviper2k7 when I got it today, it was a part of a large dispute several months back). The result of that discussion was that the links may be removed from the infobox, as it doesn't seem to hurt nor help the reader's understanding of the article. I don't know where that exact discussion is now because I wasn't a part of it. I told Jmfangio that, yet he continues to fight against me at ANI and reverting my edits at the Dick Lane article. I told him that he was on the verge of Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking a couple times. I can't believe that this is worth taking me to ANI for. Can you please help resolve this conflict? Ksy92003(talk) 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, when I can (also noting Jmfangio's thread, directly above), but I'm a bit busy at the moment. Looks like the both of you have taken this to AN/I in my absence, I'll see what I might do when I have more time. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Uh, Luna? I have a few questions:

1) What is an administrator, considering you are one yourself?

2) What is the minimum amount of time and edits I'd need to prove that I'm responsible enough for the mop?

3) What are the basic responsibilities of a sysop?

4) What if I accidentally violate the 3RR? Am I able to request an unblock if this happens? If so, would an admin usually decline?

5) Where are the Wikipedia templates kept?

6) Let's say I'm blocked for suspected sockpuppetry, and yet I am not a sockpuppeteer, but use a shared IP address with the same user as somebody else who has seemingly suspicious connections with me. What do I do then (not that it'll happen, of course)?

7) What are the overall guidelines to making an article featured?

8) How, exactly do you know when vandalism is taking place? I try looking at recent changes, but I just can't find anything.

Sorry for bothering you so much. LOZ: OOT 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)