User talk:Luna Santin/Archive 4

Talk – Sandbox – Suggestions

This is an archive of past discussion. Please do not modify it.

If you need to continue or revive one of these discussions, feel free to start a new thread on my talk page.

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

1 « 3 ‹ Archive 4 › 5 » 28

Bots? Bots? We don't need no stinkin' bots!

Thanks for the revert. Have good days.—Chidom ^talk 10:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) ( working on brevity )[reply]

Thank You

Dear Luna, Thank you for your welcome. And thank you for your pointers on deletion-discussion process. I be interested to see what others also say. I've added a different discussion on the Village Pump at [1]. I'd be interested in your comments on this. Best regards, bunix 12:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

Like with some articles, I'm trying to shrink their size so that they don't get too big. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bunny-chan (talk • contribs) 20 August 2006.

^_^

Removing spacings, so if someone adds a another paragraph, it doesn't go over the size limit. Sorry for not saying so earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bunny-chan (talk • contribs) 20 August 2006.

Sorry...

I'm sorry for making a mistake on editing your page. I thought I hadn't backspaced something properly, when it turned out that while in the course of removing vandalism, I had actually removed something unrelated. Another user reverted my mistake. Just clearing that up. See ya! --67.170.38.119 09:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha; it's cool. Thanks. :) Luna Santin 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note!

Yep, the 3O dispute worked out fine. There was never any question; just the usual troll putting up a vanity page and then getting huffy when I listed it on AfD. I'd actually offered to work with him to salvage some core of an actual article, but he preferred to descend to invective and attack. I mostly listed it at 3O so that he'd see that it wasn't just my opinion that his page was less than notable.

So... thanks for your interest! Cool that you go to DVC; a couple of my former students go there now. Ta! --Graham^talk/mail/e 22:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista article security

Hi. As an editor of the Windows Vista article, you may be interested in commenting or expressing your opinion on this discussion on the article's talk page at Security updates and patches --Peter Campbell Talk! 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank for your help & the very quick reply. DXRAW 03:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting my userpage. DVD+ R/W 04:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that

Right. I apoligize for jumping the gun a little on that... I should have checked the talk page first. Thanks for not juming to yell at me, and letting me know in a very civil manner. aido2002 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's okay... thanks for caring, though. aido2002 09:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crosses! Skulls! Visual hysteria!

(Paging Edward Tufte. . . .)

I've just now very belatedly noticed your comment here. Sorry I didn't see it earlier, but I stopped paying attention to that discussion after a time, and only revisited it today when I wanted to point Woohookitty toward it.

I'm still sure I'm right about that.

I'm particularly wary of doing things that aggrandize "counter-vandalism". As I see it, vandals are boring, countering vandalism is boring; if you jolly up the latter task too much you risk attracting some screwy people to it: you get "counter-vandals" who at one level or another actually crave vandalism. Indeed, at about the time I was writing that commentary, I was intermittently dealing with a curiously keen vandal hunter -- who quickly turned out to be a part-time vandal. (He claimed a split personality or some such. He switched ID, and now the old ID is banned as an imposter. Or similar: I've lost track.) -- Hoary 11:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I apologize deeply for that and want to thank you for being so kind about it. Thank you for all you do here : ) -- User:Shy1520

Signpost updated for August 21st


Volume 2, Issue 34	21 August 2006	About the Signpost

Politician's staff criticizes Wikipedia after being caught editing it	Board of Trustees elections continue with call for candidates
Report from the Swedish Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

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 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Vielen Dank

Thanks for the revert. Apparently, The Fursecution Vandal has decided my userpage makes a good target... :-( Anyway, thanks for the help. Heimstern Läufer 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears that I'm not being targeted anymore. I'm pretty used to having my page defaced: I'm an administrator at a smaller wiki, and the vandals don't like it when I block them. Heimstern Läufer 22:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apologies

I got the diff on the left and the one on the right mixed up.Geni 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Barnstar!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

For excellent work in fending off a Bobby Boulders sock, and for great anti-vandalism work in general, I award Luna Santin this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Keep up the good work! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deva Yogi

I caught on to this from CSD patrol. I sprotected User:StarLotus, and deleted User:Deva Yogi once, and left them a talk page message. It looks like they may be using this page as a template to make their page now, so I guess I'd push AGF a little further, bears watching after though. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank you for your friendly introduction to Wikipedia, a resource which I have been following and using since its very roots, but have yet to make the impact to it that I owe it. I was not fully aware of the 3RR rule though, and that was very kind of you to inform me of that, before I blow it for myself right off the bat. If I seem like I have an ill-temper in the other pages in which I am currently active, don't take that as my usual conduct. I am just trying to post some relevant information to a page for something I am very experienced in, such that others who may come here to learn what is happening will be informed. My irritability merely stems from the haughty accusations of vandalism and more-or-less impolite manner that is being used to deal with me by certain members. Thank you for stepping forward, extending your hand, and letting me know that not all users are like that. I'm honoured that you took the time. Dirgenzhugeliang 03:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GIen's RfA: Thank you!

Luna Santin for your Support! I I feel truly humbled & honored by your support in my RfA, which closed at 90 / 5 / 0. Thank you! If you need me for anything, just say the word. For now however, just like Mr Potter here: My mop & I shall thwart all evil :) IThank you once again my friend. GIen

PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)

Hey matey - have nothing but deep appreication and wicked respect for you. Thanks for all the support my man, see ya on IRC! 05:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks for helping fend off the vandals while Gregorian chant was on the main page. I wasn't prepared for the level of vandalism. It's heartening to know how efficient and diligent you WP admins and editors are to revert it! Peirigill 07:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Beer

Working on it right now. BalfourCentre 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Skalic

Hi Luna!

I am deleteing this paragraph simply from reason of common sense. Skailc is Croat- THERE IS NO ANY KIND OF CONTROVERSY (ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUCH A IGNORANTS, BUT REFUSE TO THINK FOR THEM SELF!) !

I'll enthusiasticly keep on deleting any kind of rubish on wiki, also this one...

Ciao! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.13.95 (talk) 25 August 2006.

Hi

Hi there, Luna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kokothebread (talk • contribs) 26 August 2006.

Thanks

Hi, thanks for the quick and helpful response, it is much appreciated, and will greatly reduce the amount of time it will take to finish my task, Thanks again L Trezise 09:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skalicgate

I am deleteing this paragraph simply from reason of common sense. Skailc is Croat- THERE IS NO ANY KIND OF CONTROVERSY (ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUCH A IGNORANTS, BUT REFUSE TO THINK FOR THEM SELF!) ! If you were a slavist as I am you would be knowing that Skalic, Skalich, Skalić etc. are all of slavic origin. Further, in a modern Croatia there are many familyes with that kind of surname ( also important to mention that all that family names are notorious in country for centuries). And on the end- I don't think that Wiki should keep on with old,(for scientists) well known mistakes of "solid" encyclopedias like "Britannica", "Americana"... concerning some matters (esp. when it comes on smaller nations!). If you don't have better (more accurate,much more recent!) sources and letters you shouldn't insist on "CONTROVERSY". On this way wikipedia is becoming more and more ridiculous for the anyone who knows somewhat better on this ( and some other) matter than usual user. This also means that Wiki is missing to provide a scientific proven informations for it's users.

But why am I so surprised- it is said fact that even country like England still doesn't have a department for Croatian language and culture (not a single university!). If you want it, you can check it easily!

Ciao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.53.28 (talk • contribs) 26 August 2006.

I'll respond here, since you seem to be using a dynamic IP address. Given the sourcing provided in the article, encyclopedias such as Encarta and Brittanica don't seem to corrborate your claim that there is "no controversy." Quoting from Encarta [2], "In 1559 the Encyclopaedia; seu, Orbis Disciplinarum, tam Sacrarum quam Prophanum Epistemon … of German writer Paul Scalich was published. This survey of the entire circle of science, “sacred and profane,” represented the first use of the term encyclopedia." Care to explain? Luna Santin 09:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't proven anything new- only that Brittanica and Encarta are shamely ignorant concerning some matters ( I wonder if you have read this part: If you were a slavist as I am you would be knowing that Skalic, Skalich, Skalić etc. are all of slavic origin. Further, in a modern Croatia there are many familyes with that kind of surname ( also important to mention that all that family names are notorious in country for centuries).)

Your proces of corroborating is different that this of many countries in Central, Eastern, South-eastern Europe, also many countries in other continents which aren't of western origin...

While others rely equally on sources and common sense (which means to use little more your own brain!), your proces is reduced to basic repetition of something from some sources, doesn't matter if they are true/accurate or false/mistake. In fact your kind of corroborating doesn't pay much of attention on checking... it's enough that it is written in "Scientific Bibles" like "Britannica" ... But why am I so surprised- it is said fact that even country like England still doesn't have a department for Croatian language and culture (not a single university!). If you want it, you can check it easily! But,I guess, all of you are just a products of that kind of society/es. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.53.28 (talk) 26 August 2006.

I highly encourage you to read policies/guidelines including verifiability, no original research, and reliable sources. Probably most importantly, per WP:V -- "the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability." With that in mind, please find reliable sources to back up what you're saying. These philosophies have been developed over time in an effort to improve the factual accuracy of Wikipedia; if it makes sense, it's not our place to decide whether Britannica or Encarta are accurate, but to report what they've said (and, if there's disagreement among reliable sources, to report that). Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing your sources. Regards, Luna Santin 10:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see! But what else could you espect of countries like England, Usa, ... Yes, it has long time ago this countries abandoned a basic TRUTH!

I guess, if you said something false for enough time it would become "reliable". In short, that is basic of your proces of corroborating and providing a "proven facts"! You know, there's a term for this kind of people in my (also some other countries) country - they are called "FAHIDIOTI"- MEANING, SOMEBODY WHO'S REPEATING SOMETHING WITHOUT ANY KIND OF understanding! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.53.28 (talk) .

Again, please cite reliable sources so that your claims can be verified by other editors, and so that Wikipedia can avoid original research. Luna Santin 10:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there's no any point of this- you just keep on; let anyone think for your own sake- DON'T RISK THAT MUCH TO USE COMMON SENSE! WIKIEDIA IS unfortunatelly, as I can see, very poor kind of source- IT'S OWN POLICY IS A "REASON" AND "EXPLANATION" FOR PROVIDING FALSE/INACURATE INFORMATION. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.53.28 (talk) 26 August 2006.

I will gladly stop mentioning verifiability policy when I'm convinced you've actually read and plan to abide by it -- an excellent way of doing that would be to cite reliable sources. Again, I encourage you to do so. Thanks so much for your time. Regards, Luna Santin 10:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that you are repeating yourself like as if you were a parrot, also a very big FAHIDIOT... So, as it seems, policy gained a decisive victory over basic scientific truth! Vive la démocratie! It seems that this "encyclopedia" is fool of lawyers and politicians, but there's none of, for instance: historians, linguists, slavists, ...

You (likewise some others there) are not worth while of any reasonable discussion- simply from the fact of their dogmatic blindness ( something similar as a dogmatic blindness of Christianity of middle ages).

Regards

Your userpage section "Some statistics"

Very nice work, Wikipedia needs all the contributors like you it can get. KOS

Thanks

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

For tireless efforts helping with the Wikipedians who Require Assistance L Trezise 04:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]