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.
|
User:Kanabekobaton edit warring arenas
I'm at my 3RR limit on a couple of the arena pages he's been changing to stadiums. If he's not going to explain the edits, I'm going to revert as vandalism. DarkAudit (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I still recommend a post to WP:AN/I, since I'm not 100% confident others will agree this is simple and obviously malicious vandalism. =\ Not all "bad" edits fit into that category. Sometimes more eyes and ears are the best solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- User followed up with cutting out 12K from Pauley Pavilion. No reason why. Continues to simply blank warnings from their talk page. DarkAudit (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- An IP user is now following my reversions to other pages Kanabekobaton had changed to stadium with no explanation. Reported to AIV. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's unambiguously actionable. Blocked the IP for 48 hours; if it's Kanabekobaton on the IP, they'll also effectively be blocked for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- An IP user is now following my reversions to other pages Kanabekobaton had changed to stadium with no explanation. Reported to AIV. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- User followed up with cutting out 12K from Pauley Pavilion. No reason why. Continues to simply blank warnings from their talk page. DarkAudit (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You guys are reverting his fixes to the infobox. Both of you were reverting to a broken version. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- How are we to know when there's no communication going on with the other editor? First time, I assumed good faith. When Twinkle took me to the user's talk page, there were already warnings about the user's behavior that day. The user decided to keep on reverting without bothering to tell anyone why, or engage in any discourse at all. The stone silence on the other end was the biggest problem here. If there had been the least attempt to communicate, then this may have been averted. DarkAudit (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I really was not comfortable with the blocks either. When you (DarkAudit) posted the IP on AIV, I declined it. Frankly, there is little to suggest that this user is not attempting to make valuable contributions but in what he is contributing there are indications he does not understand our policies or possibly our language. The straight to warning level 4 with such obviously not purposefully harmful edits is discouraging and seems like assuming bad faith to me. SorryGuy Talk 16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I went straight to that level because I saw a pattern. I had reverted a couple of Kanabekobaton's edits, and within seconds, the IP editor shows up reverting those, and only those. The only edits that IP had ever made were reverting reverts I had made. I was reverting as vandalism because the extended silence on the other end and the blanking of the talk page made it nigh-impossible to assume good faith. DarkAudit (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I really was not comfortable with the blocks either. When you (DarkAudit) posted the IP on AIV, I declined it. Frankly, there is little to suggest that this user is not attempting to make valuable contributions but in what he is contributing there are indications he does not understand our policies or possibly our language. The straight to warning level 4 with such obviously not purposefully harmful edits is discouraging and seems like assuming bad faith to me. SorryGuy Talk 16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Malonian vs Special:Contributions/JemmaBrossel who you blocked
if you have time, take a quick look. i think they've just created a new account to continue their campaign against User:Richard0612. Thanks. xenocidic (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nakon beat me to it, but looks like a good block. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Today (Apr 20th), around 15:00 UTC! Possibly on Skype, but certainly on IRC (#wikipedia-en-lectures on freenode)! I don't actually know about the Skype details... Message me on Skype (xavexgoem) about that, if you have it (no harm in getting it, either), and then maybe by that time I'll have a clue :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I Can't edit!
I am trying to edit a page here but can't. Am I not allowed to edit from my college computer lab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.15.129 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me like you're editing this page just fine. Is the page you're trying to edit protected, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I cant edit any page. I can edit talk pages, but thats it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookaloo (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you perhaps autoblocked? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
blocked user
Hi Luna, I see you just blocked User talk:166.113.0.98. Thanks for doing that, but I think you may have forgotten to put a block notice on their talk page. If I'm mistaken, please ignore this message. Have a good one. NJGW (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I typically don't leave a notice for simple vandalism blocks, but feel free if you'd like. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Luke Klein/Procession Sockpuppetry
I appreciate your blocking the sockpuppet account for User:Procession (see [1]), but can I ask why you declined to block User:Lukeklein for engaging in this activity, which was clearly designed to skewer a rambunctious debate? Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Already commented on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lukeklein, suggesting that another admin have a look. I'll mull it over and reach a decision myself or ask around a bit, later. No objection if you get somebody else to look in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you could follow through, particularly since it appears (at least to my view) that this user is getting away without any reprimand for violating Wikipedia policies (he even denied doing it after it was confirmed that he created the sockpuppet). I am only asking you because I'm afraid it might be tacky if I go chasing after Admins on this matter. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Procession has since been unblocked, after providing some evidence they're different people (though they do know each other); that being the case, it wouldn't make sense for me to block Lukeklein at this point. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems the two users are actually roommates using the same wireless connection (as identified in Procession's statement for unblocking). In any event, I appreciate your input in this matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you could follow through, particularly since it appears (at least to my view) that this user is getting away without any reprimand for violating Wikipedia policies (he even denied doing it after it was confirmed that he created the sockpuppet). I am only asking you because I'm afraid it might be tacky if I go chasing after Admins on this matter. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You might also want to note that 83.82.115.34 has been violating privacy rules, identified another editor by their alleged legal name, here. I reverted it and posted the stock warning, but they don't seem to have contacted oversight to remove the edit. Sivanath (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I hesitate to act unilaterally at this time, outside protection and a "wait and see" approach, but feel free to post to WP:AN/I or elsewhere soliciting additional input/eyes. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll email oversight myself... I think the IP certainly could have been blocked for violating 3RR, or that semi-protection against ip disruption might have been just as effective, but the page seems to have been stable for a long time before the ip editor showed up, so it probably doesn't matter that much. I've only tweaked it a little myself... Sivanath (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sivanath, would you care to explain why you deleted all references to http://hamsa-yoga.org including a reference to a recent newspaper piece on his activities, and the video tape links of him presenting at the United Nations? Don't these things seem like they might satisfy the basic notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia? If you feel that the issue is not that these events do not make Yogiraj Siddhanath Gurunath notable, please explain why Mahendranath is there. On the other hand, if the issue is that you do not feel that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath has the correct initiations for citation on the Nath page, could you provide evidence that Mahendranath - who you relisted several times after I removed him because there is no evidence on the page of his initiations apart form his own writings - has these initiations and should be listed?
- I'll email oversight myself... I think the IP certainly could have been blocked for violating 3RR, or that semi-protection against ip disruption might have been just as effective, but the page seems to have been stable for a long time before the ip editor showed up, so it probably doesn't matter that much. I've only tweaked it a little myself... Sivanath (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--83.82.115.34 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'll note that I stated that members of the International Nath Order were abusing their wikipedia admin privileges and, when one of the INO people suggested that this was a "conspiracy theory" ala the Illuminati, I simply named names. The suggestion has been made that this is improper - well, I dunno, if naming names is improper, so be it. I removed the name but the accusation stands.
As for the fundamental issue, here it is: Lobsang Rampa was a guy who invented a fictional life as a Tibetan Lama. This guy they call Mahendranath invented a fictional life as a Nath. How do we know this? Well, here's the thing - we don't know for sure. However, the Nath page has been maintained for a long time - largely by Mahendranath group members - with the rule that any Nath teacher who somebody wants to list on that page must have been officially given a special initiation. However, they exempt their own teacher, Mahendranath, from all such rules of evidence. Not only is there no third party confirmation that Mahendranath was given any such Parampara initiation, in fact the only evidence we have that he was a Nath at all is his own books and letter, which are clearly self-referential and therefore bar him from listing on the page until such time as either new evidence is produced, or the rule for inclusion on the page allows self-documentation of status of a Nath teacher.
This is not a minor matter. For example, http://hamsa-yoga.org is a recognized Indian Nath teacher who the International Nath Order wiki distortion crew regularly delete from the Nath pages on the basis that they do not believe his story about initiation, in spite of the fact that he is accepted as a Nath teacher by the wider Nath community in India.
The conflict of interest issues in this case are severe. The International Nath Order has maintained a Scientology-like war against other Nath groups, including splinter groups of their own tradition, for at least 10 years, if not 15. The AMOOKOS group, for example, has had to pull material down because of legal threats, and there are many accounts of this kind of thing in places like the archive of the AMOOKOS mailing list.
What is particularly troubling is that International Nath Order people have been abusing their position as wikipedia admins to maintain their version of the truth - that they are sole inheritors of the Nath tradition outside of India, and they are willing to lie and break the rules to maintain that position.
Bottom line: they need to provide evidence, from sources which are not Mahendranath's writings, that he was ever initiated as a Nath, and that he was passed Parampara, or they need to allow the listing of other modern Nath groups - particularly the http://nath-society.org and the http://hamsa-yoga.org groups - on the page. It's a simple question of a cult-like group seizing control of an information resource. Nothing more, and nothing less. --83.82.115.34 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have unblocked this user because photographic evidence presented to unblock-en-l indisputably proves that the two accounts are operated by different people. This may be a case of meatpuppetry, but it is not sockpuppetry.
Cheers. --Chris (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. o.o Will take your word for it for now, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:O
– Gurchzilla 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- :o – Luna Santin (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
David Hall Protection Request
Thank you for responding to my request for page protection regarding the David Hall (Oklahoma governor) article. Although you have already declined my request, I was wondering if you had a chance to read the comments relating to the dispute on my UserTalk page, and the UserTalk pages of User:J.delanoy, User:John celona, and User:Jkp212. Having said that, I have a question regarding how to deal with comments made by User:John celona and User:Jkp212 on my UserTalk page regarding the Billy Cannon article, which I have no connection to. I have posted notices on both of their UserTalk requesting that they refrain from arguing with each other my UserTalk page, but that does not settle the question of what to do with the inappropriate comments on my UserTalk page. User:Acalamari, the administrator I first contacted regarding this matter, but who chose not to take an active role in resolving the dispute, suggested that it would be acceptable for me to remove the irrelevant comments from my UserTalk page. Any further assistance you can provide regarding this matter would be appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Users are generally given a pretty wide latitude as far as removing comments from their own talk pages. Notice User:John celona continued edit warring and has been blocked. Will check back periodically to see if any more blocks are needed (for any edit warriors, not any particular person). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael Rutter
I should be very grateful if you would look at the page I created on Michael Rutter and the edits by Fanities. It seems to me that these edits are made without reference to the text or the supporting page on Monotropy and I should be grateful if you would tell me whether they constitute vandalism?
Rutter describes Monotropy as 'abandoned' yet it appears on the attachment theory page as a 'tenet' citing Jean Mercer before it was removed.
Many thanksKingsleyMiller (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Factually incorrect
You stated: "Actually, your actions following the March 21 block make it quite apparent that you issued a legal threat via email, given your immediate claims that a threat made off the wiki wouldn't count. For example, you removed a post mentioning the threat on the grounds that it discussed a private email, posted carefully worded posts that repeatedly deny only making a threat "on Wikipedia" but do not deny making such a threat, then move to justify your use of email to issue the threat; in the days following, you were engaged in an argument at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats over the meaning and spirit of the policy (arguing that the email was acceptable), and were eventually blocked for edit warring on that page. You regularly insist that users who criticize your actions are behaving in an uncivil manner and should stop commenting or remove their criticisms, and continue that trend here. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)"
The block does not make anything clear, as it was withdrawn, which would not be in compliance with NLT if there was such. Also, I stated that in addition to my not making a threat, that email would not apply. You conflated the two as one argument, which is incorrect.
I removed two posts by the admin in question demanding answers on Wikipedia about a private email. Wikipedia is not a message board, nor should it be used as such.
In the days following, I was involved in a dispute that had SwatJester and Thebainer agree with me on the wording. Please do not misstate this, as community consensus agreed with me on the issue.
Furthermore, those who bring up misstatements of facts fall under "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page so as to mislead one or more editors." By constantly saying that I have made legal threats when the block was overturned and a statement was that I didn't, in fact, make an actual legal threat, then that is asserting false information that would mislead others. That is improper, especially in such a situation as this. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
To back up my statement regarding the history of the "legal block": here. As you can see from the discussion, it was determined that it wasn't an actual legal threat.
Especially: "::I concur. The use of the term "legal" in the comment made to Shell does not appear to have been intended to express actual legal action. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)" and "::I've reduced your block to 19 hours, which represents the remainder of the time you had left on your most recent temporary block. Mangojuicetalk 03:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Willfully omitting the key statement from the unblocking admin, "I'm going to take that as a retraction and unblock you." :) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, 1) I missed that the first time around, I think I was unblocked by that time and 2) that wasn't the unblocking admin. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Quite sure on that point? Rather appears Mangojuice made that comment at 3:06 (UTC) and unblocked you at 3:07 before reinstating the prior (temporary) block at 3:08. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously? It reads as "22:09, 21 March 2008 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs) unblocked Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs) (wait, sorry, he threated to take legal action against me with the WM Foundation, changing back to original length)" to me, and that was the retraction of "22:08, 21 March 2008 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Legal threats)". Hmmm.
- I don't know. There are too many unblocks and reblocks to really tell what is going on anymore. My talk page times don't really seem to match up with any of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Quite sure on that point? Rather appears Mangojuice made that comment at 3:06 (UTC) and unblocked you at 3:07 before reinstating the prior (temporary) block at 3:08. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, 1) I missed that the first time around, I think I was unblocked by that time and 2) that wasn't the unblocking admin. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that user should be blocked indefinitely (or banned) because his account is only used for vandalism. See this? That was what he did on my talk page after I warned him about this racially-motivated edit. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- My personal experience that with this sort of user or account, the block duration has little impact in practice: once they're blocked, they frequently stop editing indefinitely. If they do return, either they continue to edit disruptively and are reblocked (happy ending), or reform and edit productively (happy ending). On the off chance they do come back and bother you, my bad. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael rutter
Please can you advise on the following?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Rutter#Dispute_resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 10:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work on deleting the guy's ravings. He made a point, however, that the ravings to which he was responding have NOT been removed. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Shouldn't they go? Lou Sander (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly? Unfortunately I'm not sure which other ravings are present; this "JAGOFF" he mentioned doesn't seem to show up on the page, and reading the whole thing looking for them isn't quite my cup of tea. :) If you like, feel free to do something or other, yourself, or point it out to me if you'd rather not. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism - Attachment Theory
Dear Luna,
I am in a discussion on the following page and found it had been removed.
The point of this discussion is to get the bottom of the problems on this and other topics;-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Attachment_theory
I have put notes on the page calling this vandalism amd stating I would contact an administrator.
I should be grateful for your urgent help.
kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I could be missing it, but I don't see where discussion is being removed; could you provide a diff to that effect? Beyond that, I notice the MedCab case doesn't appear to have a mediator, yet. Probably the best thing all of you could do at this point is get more voices involved, either through MedCab or RFC. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- We have had two 3PO's and a sources noticeboard view but Kingsley does not accept any of their views. There is absolutely no point going to the Psych Project as there is never any response from it. RfC's in obscure areas of psychology like attachment get little or no response. Fainites barley 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
They are today (27 April 2008) at 15:00 UTC. Here is the skype link & here's the IRC link. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Grawp sock puppet
Is there any way to stop this guy? Or are we going to have to spend the rest of our lives undoing his vandalism? Serendipodous 09:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's a question that might be best left to the checkusers. :) Our best move ("in the trenches") is an odd combination of WP:RBI and WP:DENY, in my opinion. The more exciting, interesting, or otherwise rewarding we make it for this person to continue, the longer they will do so. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Banned user
If "(rmv nonsense from banned user)" is banned, why aren't they blocked? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. Zemzance (talk · contribs), Xeonecon (talk · contribs), Wollingwolorine (talk · contribs), and Vilecremence (talk · contribs) are all blocked as obvious sockpuppets of LaruaWA11 (talk · contribs). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for abusing my powers. I appreciate you not being mean like that other guy who wanted to delete my article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGoAldar (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Help?
Thanks, the URL works perfectly. (The agreement you saw would have cleared and shown you the page you were clicking into had you accepted.) Is there some sort of list of all the escape sequences for typing special characters like that? Thanks again, Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I happened to recall the encoding for [ and ] from prior experience, but googling "% encoding" or anything similar might be helpful. The Percent-encoding article links to this online tool which might (hopefully) be helpful, at least for single character lookup if not for a full fix. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the great work
Luna Santin. Your one of the users with a unique username that i will never forget, i have seen you around for a very long time here and there, its great you still have the motivation and the passion to help the project as time goes on. I have seen a fair bit of users who have given up for a variety of reasons, im not one of them. By the way are you really into the Moon or is it something you came up with. Im sorry, i know this question has probably been asked of you after all your years on wikipedia, im just curious thats all. Another thing when you first started you stated you dreamt of living in a van by the river eating govt cheese. Very strange indeed, how close is that dream to reality after nearly 2 years? Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk 2 me) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, there. :) Wikipedia's something I've been able to enjoy, off-and-on, because it's something I can do to connect with some great, intelligent people, learn a bit about large web projects, and hopefully to help a large number of people find information they're looking for. Currently I'm on a wikibreak, but I suspect I'll be dropping back in, before too long. As far as the moon, I think I like the idea of looking up at it, wondering how many other people will be seeing the same thing at any given moment... and it made for a distinctive name. ;) The cheese bit was a reference to an old Saturday Night Live skit I'm rather a fan of (though I suppose I do live near a river, now). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. I might add myself at a later date; been on a bit of a vacation, lately. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Advice needed regarding Fanities
Dear Luna Santin,
I have sought Fanities cooperation in the mediation process with no success (PLEASE SEE LINK
Can you tell me the next stage?
(Please can you also acknowledge receipt of this message)
KingsleyMiller (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Child Psychology
Luna ,
I have left many notes on your discussion page regarding this matter.
Can you tell me what the next stage after referring the case for dispute resolution to a CABAL maybe?
Many thanks,
KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could even get Fainites to share his or her objections to the Rutter page?KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm on a bit of a "vacation" from Wikipedia, at the moment; might have more time to look into this at a later time, if it's still needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
'Hello' article vandalisim
This internet IP address (165.21.155.8) is from a ISP and is shared and used by many people.
Apparently the freaking ISP is used by a great many 12-year-old twits. (No offense to any sane 12-year-olds.)
Evidence: Edits to Maplestory... and various other crap.
The talk page for this IP is vaguely disturbing.
Just a thought.
- Hopes that my computer has not been hijacked.*
165.21.155.13 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Curse of editing from a shared IP. :) You could register an account if this bothers you any. If not, you can at least be secure in the knowledge that this wasn't you causing the trouble. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Refresh my memory
Not sure if you remember me from the Village pump debate on updating WP:USER to make it explicitly clear that anonymous editors are permitted to remove messages from their own talk pages, however I was one of the (loud, outspoken) folks who started out on the "nay" side but was eventually swayed by your persuasive logic. During that discussion, there was some debate as to the types of things that IPs could not remove from their talk pages. My recollection was that there were three items that anonymous editors were not permitted to remove: sock notices, unblock requests while the block was still active, and IP headers ({{ISP}}, {{SharedIP}}, and {{SharedIPedu}}). However looking at WP:USER, I only see references to the first two items, and nothing on the headers. Refresh my memory ... were the headers excluded by accident or was it intentional? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Wikipedia:YUFDMP
I have nominated Wikipedia:YUFDMP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lectures time
Yeah, we're posting on time for once (40 minutes early). Todays lecture is by Vassyana (an expert mediator), who will be talking about how to deal with conflicts, whether you are a mediator or not. Hope to see you there! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Media/image merge
I'm a little unsure here, I guess I followed a helpful link someone gave me and ended up at a superceded help desk. I've gone back to check at Help:Contents/Images_and_media and I see links to both of Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk. Should the latter now be shown on that master page as deprecated? The Ichd has had more activity since your change to the merge notice, so maybe the notice needs to be more bigger and more redder? :) Neway, I'll try my current question at Mcq. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a request on Template talk:Songs and was wondering if you could help. Basically the List and Category class are still appearing as unassessed with this template and I was wondering if you could edit the template so these articles would no longer appear unassessed. Any help you can provide is appreciated. Orfen T • C 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's the right thing to do...
Why not do it? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- You and I believe that it's the right thing to do, but others disagree. That's why there was an edit war that led to the page's protection. Utilizing one's sysop bit to continue engaging in said edit war while the page is protected most definitely is not the right thing to do. —David Levy 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:RFAR#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion. FYI--Hu12 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Feelings haven't much changed on the subject, but I find it hard to argue with David. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, at first when he said this I was puzzled because I must of misunderstood what you meant by going to /IP check and after a while the slipped from my mind with all the homework in real life I have to do. Since you bring it up, I assume that you are rather experienced with lesser know aspects of wikipedia, it would be really appriciated if you could help me out. I'm not experienced with Checkuser (as you can see), I mostly only know how to revert, warn, and file an AIV report. Anyway, on the situation at hand, what caught my attention to Devilzhitmen was the following quote in his unblock request (which had obviously been rejected):
if you block my account indefinately i'll just create a new one
As you can see, he is clearly threatening account abuse. He was blocked for vandalism and personal attacks, and an editor has also expressed concern that he is a sock of User:Eddieebo (who has a similar record) although I don't beleive that this has been confirmed. There is the whole story (or at least what I know). What do you beleive would be the proper course of action? Should I file a Checkuser request with a subpage under Eddieebo?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Hi,
I got some warning from you about vandalism but I can't recall ANYTHING like that and I do not share an anonymous IP.
Could you please tell me what entry this is about?
Thank you 91.129.34.132 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Häwatein
User: Ducksofmercy
Please reconsider my block. Sorry I'm using an IP, but this is the only way I can talk to you 86.145.144.99 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)