Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:35, 5 February 2008

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 ] when mentioning users and pages • Sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ to leave your name and date If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages 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.

Thanks

Just a thanks for keeping my Talk page reasonably safe. Seems I've made myself some friends. Maybe I'll have to get my talk page semi-protected too - oh well. --ShakataGaNai 09:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

dynamic ips are back

The articles you protected temporarily on 9 Jan 2008 due to vandalisms from dynamic ips from the same domain are being attacked again.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have switched ips again Ghanadar galpa (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the WP:AIV report , I blocked the latest IP for 31 hours. Based on that evidence I would also endorse protection of the pages in question. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Gave a few pages semi-protection; as Indophobia is now being edit warred over by experienced users, I've given it a shorter full protection. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Related by autoblock?

Hi, at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/SaxonUnit you mentioned that SaxonUnit, ClaxsonUnit, and ShadowpuppetKing all seem to be related by autoblock. I'm having a bit of trouble tracing that particular lead myself; could you point me at the right log entries? (Fire me an email if you don't want to hand out details of your investigation.) Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Emailed away. Nothing too outlandish. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's perfect; I should have looked there myself. For some reason the toolserver's autoblock search wasn't working for me. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RFCU channel

Hi Luna. Would you be able to give me access to the #wikipedia-checkuser-clerks channel on freenode? No problem at all if you can't. Cheers, Spebi 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much a dead channel, to be honest. As far as access, I can give you individual invites, but for enduring access you'll need to get in touch with Lar, Deskana, Mackensen, Dmcdevit, or Jpgordon. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Thefiercedeity

He's back; first edit: . --Jack Merridew 12:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And he's blocked indefinitely. --Jack Merridew 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

This is letting you know that I have replied to both you and Sandstein about the block on both the user's talk page and my own. SirFozzie (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: quick note

Ok :-)

Pahari Sahib 21:40, 13 January 2008 (GMT)

Request for info

I can edit now thank you. Some reference pages were left on my site and I am going over them. Not sure why I was frozen. I won't be making changes until I finish the ref. pages. I don't want to get frozen again. My name is not Steven though. I picked it from a trial(?) that was going on when I first found Wiki. One of the guys was up against 10 or more people. Seemed like an underdog to me, so I used it for my screen name. They were talking all on the military aircraft pages, which is my hobby. I think I will work on another subject though when I am ready.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMancarelli (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Democrats

The Democrats did NOT get their roots in the Jeffersonian Democrats or the Democratic Republicans. In fact, John Q. Adams was a Democratic-Republican losing to Andrew Jackson the first Democrat. Get your fucking shit right. If you knew shit from fruit, you would know the your thumb doesn't belong in your ass. Jefferson as with the first 6 Presidents would be Republicans today. The article is WRONG and you are making it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waggthedog (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Woooah, there. Like most Wikipedians I generally prefer calm conversation to flame warring. If I made a mistake in reverting, you're quite right to point it out, but quite wrong in your methods. Care to try again? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

leik zomg u rvrted mah edits u no nuffink – Gurch 05:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's almost as good as this one (almost a year old now, but still lol-worthy) Orderinchaos 12:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your blocking of 65.24.238.60

I noticed that you blocked this IP for two days. However, in the past he was blocked for 12 days and one week. I believe that blocks were to escalate to longer periods. Won't a longer block be more appropriate. Thanks! Marlith /C 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks to be a shared IP address (not by masses people at once, I don't think; more likely by multiple people over time), and hasn't been an apparent source of problems since the last block in November. Could always be reblocked in the event of more problems in the near future. Appreciate the attention to the issue, though. :) Feel free to point out if I'm missing something. You're more than welcome to get a second opinion (probably the village pump or admin noticeboard would do fine), and I don't anticipate having any objection if somebody alters the current block settings. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Marlith /C 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looked it over again, since you seemed to have a point. I think I'll extend the block. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Marlith /C 05:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

202.95.200.17

Thanks for telling me to use talk pages. I'm already starting a discussion on Talk: Fuel starvation about why editors are reverting edits on "Fuel starvation". Can you contribute in the discussion? The talk page on Fuel starvation is hardly noticed most of the time.

--202.95.200.17 (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of the Real KFI

This is John Ziegler, the writer of www.therealkfi.com which I understanding you are censoring. I believe you are doing so under a misunderstanding which I would like to rectify. Can we speak about this?

thanks

John Ziegler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow the censorship claim: your website is your business, quite naturally. Content on Misplaced Pages, though, needs to comply with relevant policies. My comments at User talk:Grafofoni are probably a good starting point, if you're not clear where I'm coming from. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of Real KFI

What exaclty is poorly referenced at www.therealkfi.com??!! It is incredibly WELL referenced. There is actual audio and newspaper links to back up much of the content and I witnessed everything that is in there. There has not even been a request by those named to take the site down or even edit it. There has not even been a threat of legal action. You are arbitrarily censoring this because I REPORTED that everyone I know at KFI BELEIVES Ken to be gay. I go out of my way to say I do not KNOW if he is gay. The reader can decide for themsleves if I am right or that is relevant, but this in no way violates your standards and if you think that it does I would respectful submit that I deserve a SPECIFIC portion of the site that alledgedly violates your standards.

john Ziegler

Please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. You're self-publishing with no editorial oversight, I gather? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that you don;t allow posts from websites created by individuals???!! Give me a break! You can;t even say that with a straight face. I am a nationally known commentator (ranked the #54 talk host in the country by Talkers magazine), I have had two books published, I am producing a major documentary right now. What more do you want? this is hilarious.

That is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, actually. Again, please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. The things you're saying may or may not be true; the relevant thing from my perspective is whether they can be verified by mainstream secondary sources. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT your standard. I can find 1,000 examples of personal websites that write about figures and are on wikipedia. I WAS THERE!!!! Don;t you get it? What difference does it make if a write for the LA Times interviews me and writes about it? Who decides what is "mainstream"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I would like an example of what you have a problem with on the site.

It makes a world of difference if the LA Times writes about it, actually, because the LA Times has professional reporters, fact checkers, editors, lawyers, publishers, sponsors, and hundreds of people staking their very livelihoods on the factual accuracy of this secondary source. Eyewitness accounts are certainly of value, but are a primary source -- Misplaced Pages generally prefers secondary or tertiary sources, especially in cases where WP:BLP applies, and even moreso in cases of contentious material. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

STILL no examples!! Gee, I wonder why.

If a Times reporter interviewed me and wrote about they would not have any of those people involved in the process. You have no clue what you are talking about. Riddle me this, why has Clear Channel not even threatened legal action?

Secondary sources???? What are the damn audio clips??? I don;t think you ahve even looked at the site! You jsut saw that it SEEMED that I was outing a gay man and censored it. You are a fraud.

You seem to be getting pretty upset, judging from your typing; you may want to step back and return when you've calmed down a bit. As far as "outing," I'll put a bit more emphasis on it: we do not post contentious material about living people unless it is reliably sourced; such material may be removed from Misplaced Pages pages on sight. Your website is not a reliable source for this sort of information, by our policies and norms. You're welcome to post whatever you like on your own website, as is your right, but Misplaced Pages is not your website and has editorial policies by which content must abide. Would you like it if we posted such things about you because some random blogger said so? I'd imagine not. Why is it surprising that we'd show someone else the same courtesy? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Look you sanctimonious nazi, I am not some "random blogger"!! I was THERE, I am very public person, I backed it all up!! And, for the record, THIS IS NOT ABOUT POSTING THE INFORMATION, it is about LINKING TO THE WEBSITE!!! That is totally different, is it not??!

Ooh. That means you lose. HalfShadow (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I am just a random blogger not worthy of breathing your air you will have to explain what the heck that means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you won a very high priced Godwin point. Spend it carefully. -- lucasbfr 10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Defintion of Defamatory

BTW, do you have any idea whatsoever what the legal definition of defamatory for a public figure is? It is that the person wrting or speaking has to KNOW what they are saying is false or, at the very least have a reckless disregard for the truth. That isn't even CLOSE to being the case here, which is proven by the lack of even the slightest threat of legal action.

BTW, I have recieved WELL over 1,000 e-mail from KFI listeners thanking me for the site and backing up ALL of the info in there.I would be happy to forward them to you.

John Ziegler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Could you please explain how one person, with my track record, who saw everything themsleves and backs it all up with audio is not a "reliable" source? So if there is only one witness to something that is willing to speak (unless they own a major newspaper) then that is not a reliable source until a major newspaper reports what they say they saw?

You know this is crazy. Just admit that this is about protecting a presumed homosexual and I will go away and just trash you on the radio and my next book (which, btw, is cited on wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've suggested several times, please take a look at WP:RS. This isn't a turn of phrase I'm making up on the fly. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I ahve read it. TWICE! That is not your standard and you are flat out lying when you say it is. There are thousands of personal websites with facts/opinions linked on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.84.47 (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't take them long to screw that up, did it?

And I thought school made you smarter... HalfShadow (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, some people just can't take a hint on when to stop digging. Eh! :p – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghanadar galpa

Hey luna santin your freind ghanadar is vandalising articles now why dont you block him isnt it time to be fair articles like indian parliament attack and indophobia. Time to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.149.202 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected one article, and will keep an eye on others. For future reference, it's very helpful if you give me a link to relevant pages so I can figure out what you're talking about. Ultimately, all of you guys need to get to dispute resolution, pronto; these nationalist disputes have never ended well on Misplaced Pages, that I can see. We're not trying to prove any particular side "right," just to try and give a neutral summary for curious people. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that you carefully investigate the edits of ip trolls before taking a position on this issue. such as touting hate speech and touting rabid conspiracy theories while evading blocks by using sockpuppets. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My general view here is simple: edit warring is bad -- you guys need to work out your differences and talk things over, if at all possible. If you can't work together, pages are likely to be protected, and whenever a page is protected it's always going to be in a version one or more people don't like. Moving along, "biased hindu views" is hardly hateful; "deleting islamophobic indian propaganda" is a bit more uncivil. It is true that the user is on a dynamic IP address, but that's not something they can control and doesn't equate to use of sockpuppets unless it's done abusively. Do you have any evidence of such abuse? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Double standars

the moderaters on wikipedia are wonderful people im sure but how comes they have such a anti pakistan biased veiw on things while good old Ghanadar is allowed to say all the rubbish he wants even when i give sourced articles he crys and plays victim. How can i stop this dynamic ip its not my fault PLEASE STOP DOUBLE STANDARS AGAINST PAKISTANI ARTICLES, P.S i dont give hate speeches its just that Ghanadar has a habbit of playing the victim biased indian veiws aint racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.241 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You could get an account (and here's a few reasons why it'll make a few things easier for you and others), and I generally recommend that anybody who plans to stick around does so, but ultimately that's entirely your decision. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Luna you havent answered my question darling why the double standards when pakistanis gives valid sources why are they called vandals and indians angels??

Oh yes i had like 3 accounts becuase i didnt grasp the way of logging in so i kept making new accounts (i know foolish) but i cant make a account becuase im some sort of suck puppet can you tell me how to make a account or appeal against this and what is a dynamic ip cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.241 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to answer the question as you've phrased it: you've given me no context, no specific incidents to comment on. For the rest, a dynamic IP address is one that changes (say, every time you connect to the internet, you have a different IP). You should be able to register, if you like. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But im always connected to the internet why does my ip keep changing its bad becuase ghanadar can expliot this and cry to moderaters like you and play the victim can you check this article please http://en.wikipedia.org/2001-2002_India-Pakistan_standoff i have given sources yet he deletes its a crucial bit of info it states india lost 800 men and ghanadar desperately runs from this fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.241 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC) http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1972788,00.html heres the sources ghanadar deleted the citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.241 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The source that the troll cites is being misrepresented in the article. I suggest a careful perusal. First of all, it's an op/ed writeen by a controversial pro-Islamist author Arundhati Roy, whose been known to engage in factual distortions.Secondly, nowhere does it mention a 1 billion dollar loss as the edit by the troll indicates. Furthermore, given the pattern of his changing ip's which magically coincide with the blocks the ips get for vandalism and trolling, I'm disinclined to buy his sob story that the ip's are changing involuntarily Ghanadar galpa (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The indian troll ghanadar cant seem to grasp the fact india lost 800 men and more than a billion dollars its written in the article can this indian troll read or not it states in the 3rd paragraph Ghanadar is a insecure indian who uses nationalist hindu sites to justify his extreme hindu and pro indian views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.208.20 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes indian troll the factual evidence is in the 3rd paragraph stop ducking and masking articles with your shallow narrow pro hindu and indian veiws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.208.20 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I really have to respond to such bigoted and disgusting remarks? Can there be any further doubt as to the trollish disruption that this fella is causing?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, i request a read of my post here .Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To 86.156, that sort of attack isn't going to help the general situation or your case. Please try to appear reasonable, as the tide of opinion can turn quickly. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Its seems to me Ghanadar is inwilling to recognise the 3rd paragraph of the article on indian parliament attack why are you so scared? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.42 (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you said. Please rephrase if it's important. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks...

...for the help with Wolfwillripyourfaceoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a week ago, and for reverting the vandalism to my user page. That was the first time my page has been vandalized, and it was infuriating; I guess vandalfighters get used to it over time. :o) Thanks again! Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Very used to it, yes. :) The proverbial wisdom I've heard is that it usually shows you've done a good job, someplace. Glad to be of any service, and of course feel free to grab me if they keep bothering you. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the unblock now i don't feel sick it was upsetting me that i could not edit and you have made it all better thanks so much :) Jay2k (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jadey Wadey"

Thank you SO much for blocking that guy. I've seen some real vandals on this site over the years, but that monkey really took the taco. You've always been a genuine asset to this site. May your mop and bucket never falter! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Could I impose on you to lock out the talk page? Our monkey is still at it. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Why, thanks. :) I'll take a look at that talk page, and protect if they keep at it. Usually I figure a "caged tiger" isn't much of a problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, he just did it again a few seconds ago. I managed to find a really silly template that another admin had slapped on a similar user. It's just too darn cool to be ruined. I'd like to visit it every once in awhile to renew my own sense of purpose.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• And one more time. I'll give him this much: He's a persistent little twerp.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I got up for a bite to eat, and here I see it's been protected while I was away. Oh, well. There's always another day. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:O

*huggles* Huggle (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Sorry! My mistake... --Solumeiras 12:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. :) You've been doing great work. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, it's just AIV is a bl***y distraction from mainspace editing!! Glad you could help! Solumeiras —Preceding comment was added at 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tingari - thanks!

Many thanks for removing the banner. I see that I also forgot to bold the first use of the entry term... I knew I was bound to miss something!

In future I'll endeavour to use a different referencing system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LloydGraham (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One think that would help me is a URL for existing categories in Misplaced Pages. Haven't yet found one, depsite searching.

LloydGraham (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful reply... what you say you normally do is exactly what I had done, I just wondered if there were other categories I should have included.

LloydGraham (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

edting one's talk page

Last I read, users may remove the warnings. These were old, so they don't seem relevant. I agree with the protection though. Maybe now we can have some peace. :) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my read, too, but ending the edit war seemed a bit more urgent. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Dlohcierekim 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for dealing with that sock farm at my talk page. It's very much appreciated! --Oxymoron 12:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

spammer

if spammer returns i am holding you responsible for not blocking long enough--Seriousspender (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It should be easy enough to reblock in such circumstances. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you come across any more...

If you come across any more of the D&D tag-removers, there is a checkuser case on them here. Feel free to add them to the request. -Jéské 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'll see if I can add some a bit later. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are more every day or so. Every time I look, I find more — sometimes ones I've missed for a week. This has to move up a notch. I do note that many editors have participated in reverting the tag-removers and appreciate it. FYI, I have been restoring tags removed without real effort at addressing the issue. Sometimes whatever sock has made a few trivial edits in the same edit as the tag-removal and unless I see something substantive, I undo those at the same time; and sometimes trivial edits have been made subsequently so that undo does not work, in which case I revert the lot. This show disturbing planning on the vandal's part. --Jack Merridew 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE) Alison caught it on the same IPs as our old giant friend! I'm already getting Hagrid's umbrella, mind bumming Harry's wand? -Jéské 06:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Scientology

Thanks for reverting the vandalism, I reported the IP to WP:AIV. How did you first notice the vandalism?Cirt (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Me, through a filtered recent changes feed on IRC (see WP:RCP#Tools). :) Glad to help. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again! Cirt (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

User Page Vandalism

Hi, i was one of about twelve or so users whose userpages were blanked and vandalised by User:Shipyears. Question: why was I targeted by said vandal? i am rather prominent on WP:AFD and i patrol Special:recentchanges for vandalism, may that be why? I thank you for taking the offending edit off my userpage. The edit proclaims "Due to rampant deletionism by this editor, this user page has been confiscated by Ass Pus Productions®, a division of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Concerned parties may see Foundation:Contact us)" Which is unfunny. Very unfunny. especially because he overflowed it. I would like to know what links me to the other eleven people whose userpages were vandalized (which can be found here. Much obliged, Doc Strange (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I never did figure out what linked you all, unfortunately. A few users were targeted for more harassment, shortly thereafter, but I haven't seen much of anything since then. If you see any signs of a return, I can at least block and protect as needed, in the meantime, though. Sorry I don't have all the answers, but hopefully that's some consolation. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The only think I know links me to some of them is that i'm a regular at WP:AFD. Maybe we voted delete on one of this guy's articles and he took it the wrong way. But nonetheless, thanks for the revert of that malicious edit and I will contact you if there is any return. Much obliged, Doc Strange (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found a small link between me and a few of the other people who User:Shipyears vandalised: we're all either Twinkle users and/or Recent Change Patrollers and/or voters on WP:AFD, which continues my theory that this user was out on a Vendetta against Wikipedians who revert vandalism. But aside from that, virtually no one project connects all twelve of the affected users together. It's almost like he picked us at random almost. In fact one of the affected users hadn't edited an article for almost a month prior to the attack. The more research I do on this, the weirder it gets. Doc Strange (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of Iamthemika

Hi. I was reviewing the edits (including deleted contributions) of User:Iamthemika after seeing the report on WP:AIV. I posted an voablock note and was proceeding to indefblock - and see that you have issued a 1 hour block. In view of deleted and reverted contributions, do you think a longer than 1 hour block is in order? — ERcheck (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to go with shorter blocks, generally, especially if a user hasn't been active very long or hasn't gotten many warnings -- the idea being that some people do come around, however unlikely it may seem at first. Obviously this user behaved pretty abusively, though, so if you want to extend the block, feel free. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise....I am in favor of short blocks to get the attention of editors. But, as you noted, this editor's behavior was pretty abusive. I'll keep a watch. If the editor returns with any vandalism, I'll voablock. — ERcheck (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm I always told Luna he was too damn nice with his blocks. ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just a courtesy note - letting you know that the user FagTaggr/Highbrow was actually a long term abuser under two of his many socks, per checkuser. Orderinchaos 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... explains how Highbrow got caught in FagTaggr's autoblock! Cheers! -- Flyguy649 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! I wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't previously dealt with him to know what to expect, though... he's doggedly consistent, but inside a very limited arena. Orderinchaos 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

I've always taken it that sourced content should not be removed without consensus; next revert will break 3RR. Basically he's unilaterally owning the article, and I'm trying to stop him. Or should I get some sleep? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is edit warring, but that's hard to do alone. ;) I'll see if I can jump-start a discussion on the talk page. There doesn't seem to be any rush to get this done immediately, we can probably afford to wait and talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's why I went along the {{subst:uw-delete1}} route, because it does invite discussion. However, he's now stopped. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Primetime

FYI some accounts that you blocked recently: "Kjgbnfjg", "Handsfudn nn5", "Nadjht45", "Abovelabel33", and "Efgnj", have turned out to be socks of Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's a longterm pest. The latest socks are listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: He's almost certainly responsible for the recent vandalism to your talk page. He's targetted a number of admins who've crossed him. In my case he mass-reverted my edits, vandalized my talk page (including page moves), and sent hundreds of emails. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack on James Stewart (actor)

See: 172.143.87.209 using the same MO as Harv. See: Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

War of Empires Misplaced Pages page

I have made some edits to the War of Empires Misplaced Pages page (209.151.133.226 (talk · contribs) and 64.229.228.64 (talk · contribs)).

Unfortunately, I did not notice a pre-existing vandalism that said: "A worker is any peasant that has been trained into the wood workers, farmers, stone workers, or miners category.because it is the best history of past that happened in Australia." which was added in a vandalism on Revision as of 06:43, 21 August 2007

An editor named "Marasmusine (talk · contribs)" flagged the page for deletion, citing unreferenced material.

I assumed it was the vandalism he/she was referring to and deleted the vandalism and the "PROD" as that seemed to be what the instructions were saying.

In less than a minute another editor, a new one named "Rustong141 (talk · contribs)" renewed the PROD. I am not convinced he/she read my edit to fix the former vandalism, and I really do not think that less than 1 minute is a fair appraisal of anything.

You seem to be the mentor editor to "Rustong141". Would you please explain the problem with the page that got it on schedule for deletion now, when clearly it has been vandalized and fixed many times in the past -- just not entirely so until today.

For the record, I oppose the proposed deletion. I have been programming, playing and contributing strategy guides for strategy-type computer games since 1980 and in my opinion War of Empires is truly remarkable and noteworthy in a number of aspects that may not be fully presented in the Misplaced Pages page. Would you please get someone to explain in the notes page for the War of Empires page what it is they find problematic about the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.228.64 (talk) 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Added a few links to the above comment, will have a look in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha; I recommend you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! and comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/War of Empires. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting my talk page

Wonder what I did to get the fool's attention? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. They seem convinced they're on some sort of anti-deletionist crusade; looks more like "harass people I don't like," but that's up to interpretation. Feel free to grab me if they turn up again. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the users in question

Thanks for responding to my post on the Talk page. ] is one I had a problem with. It didn't vandalize recently, but its edits have been pure vandalism and it continues to return after short blocks to vandalize further. Enigmaman (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I see nothing but vandalism for a prolonged period; I've given it a three-month softblock, which is usually enough to discourage vandalism while allowing in whatever decent contributors may happen past. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of a softblock before. Does that mean edits have to be approved or something? Enigmaman (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Users with accounts can still edit -- blocks anon-only. We also have an option to allow/disallow account creation from the IP (in this case I allowed it; most vandals aren't that determined to vandalize). – Luna Santin (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what you're saying. Seems like that would be good practice for a lot of the IP vandals. Enigmaman (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I don't know if you're the right person to ask about this, but there are typos within the "Request protection" tag. Enigmaman (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon-only is the default block option, I believe; it's sometimes turned off, for example if there's a strong reason to suspect sockpuppetry from the IP. As for the template, I don't think I've actually seen {{Request protection}} before, but it seems like an interesting idea. The template itself doesn't appear to be protected, so you should be able to edit it. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. The user created the template and then immediately started using it. Unfortunately, English is not this user's strong point. Thanks for all your help, Enigmaman (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and you didn't close the tag on that template. I'm going to see if I can fix it. Enigmaman (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Blargh! Good catch. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance needed with revert warrior

Hiya, I'm contacting you more or less at random since I've seen your name around, and need an "uninvolved admin" to help out with something? We've got an edit warrior, PHG (talk · contribs), who's engaging in a "slow revert" war at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. He comes in every day at about 6 a.m. GMT, and "reverts" to an older version of the page that's about 200K in size. We've got a bunch of other editors who've been reverting his changes to get back to the consensus version (a condensed article that's about 70K and we're trying to improve), but this has been going on for days now:

• January 25, 05:07 (reverted by Aramgar)
• January 24, 05:16 (reverted by Aramgar)
• January 23, 06:00 (reverted by admin WJBscribe)
• January 22, 06:07 (reverted by admin Elonka)
• January 21, 05:33 (reverted by admin Elonka)
• January 20, 06:17 (reverted by admin Shell Kinney)

PHG is not breaking 3RR, but neither is he stopping this "once a day" activity. And of even more concern, in some of his "reverts", he's actually adding in information that was never in the article in the first place, to the tune of about 50K of information. We've proven and re-proven consensus at talk, and asked him many times to stop, but he lies and denies and wikilawyers and keeps right on going.

Do you think that there's anything that you can do to help? We've already got multiple admins in the fray, but obviously we can't use tools since we're involved, so we really need assistance from someone completely new. Any help appreciated, --Elonka 08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Will see if I can help. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! :) --Elonka 08:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IP

I'd bring that IP up on the Qwerty of Man checkuser case; table Goatse.cx pictures tend to be a calling card. -Jéské 08:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Some stupid person is having fun here. That's fine with me: it keeps him off the street. But it's also rather a waste of other people's time. Sprotect? -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they've been at it for a few pages since earlier this month but seem to focus on mine, past few days. Sprotection usually stops them for a bit until they change pages (few minutes or hours; might depend how close attention they're paying to what seems to be a botnet). I'm torn between seeing it as the easiest-found list of abusive open proxies and zombies I've ever seen or wondering if it's a waste of resources. The constant reverts only bother me insofar as they interfere with regular use of the page. :) Thanks for the help, everybody. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not for the first time, I too thought about the medium-term advantages of providing the halfwit with a playpen. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Punahou School Ban

I'm not sure if this would be in keeping with usual Misplaced Pages policy, but I would like the ban on my school's IP range to be made permanent, and I would like for new accounts from the IP to be disallowed as well. This is the third time that our school has been blocked in this year alone. Permanently banning this IP from editing or registering would not prevent students from accessing Misplaced Pages as a resource, and it would not even prevent legitimate edits from anyone with the minimal amount of dedication required to register an account from home.

I believe that there would be no harm done. If you wish for the vandalism from this school to stop, you must permanently prevent anyone from registering an account from here.

Sincerely, ~Kazu (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Would be tricky to look into that without knowing which IP(s) you're referring to, of course. ;) I've blocked a few schools on staff request, as I believe community consensus is that doing so is generally appropriate... not sure if your being a student changes that, but it might, so I'd probably submit it for consideration at some place like the admin noticeboard. If there's a history of persistent vandalism or other abuse, I might be more willing to act unilaterally. Apologies for the delay, I've had a very busy weekend. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i'm new to wiki

Luna, I just started editing and looked at John Deutch's wiki entry. You were on that page very early. Have you since followed that page's history? Nukeh (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)NukeH

Not sure what page you're asking about. John Deutch redirects to John M. Deutch, which in turn disambiguates to John James Deutsch; I don't see that I've edited either page. Am I missing something? (I suppose that my failure to remember the page in question is probably an answer to your question, in itself: it seems I haven't been watching it closely.) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No

I am not pacman. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But but... :( – Luna Santin (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

( < – Gurch 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Watching Serafin socks

Nicolaus Copernicus gets frequently vandalized by user accounts that fit into Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Serafin. Apparently, you don't monitor User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin anymore, as your last edit was in March? As several accounts seem to have been created on 23 September 2007, some preemptive measures could be taken, maybe, against other accounts created then and never used since? Is it feasible to "three-quarter-protect" a page against users which have less than e.g. 10 mainspace edits? -- Matthead  Discuß   01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been using the page recently, no; I'll see if I can find time to, or other people are more than welcome to use it, in the meantime. Will take a look and see about semi-protection (regarding protection levels, the only currently available levels are semi or admin). As far as the accounts, that'd unfortunately be several thousand of them, which would be pretty difficult to check. =\ Will take a look in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On Nicolaus Copernicus in particular, I would recommend short-term full protection when Serafin comes around -- can post to WP:AN/I to request help, on the next attack. If that won't work out, the unfortunate choice is between long-term full prot (locking out most editors) or sticking with semi prot (which obviously isn't keeping out the sleepers). If we think it'd do much good, I could try giving it full protection for a week or so; might discourage them. Tricky one. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My request

Luna,

Thanks for getting back to me, just to let you know it was all one big misunderstanding, I had an apology and I was happy with that, anyway thanks again for getting back to me :-)

Regards
Pahari Sahib (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. :) Seemed pretty much resolved from what I was looking at, but wanted to be sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for additional help

There's more. Look at this user http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:78.2.70.204. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:71.96.73.99. Its ban has somehow expired already, because it's back to vandalizing. Enigmaman (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... blocked users can still edit their own user talk page (provided it hasn't been protected), which I presume explains the second IP's continued trouble. Looks like neither is active at the moment... if they return on the same IP, we could go for a longer block; if they come back on a different IP, I'd recommend reporting to WP:AIV. I generally assume IPs are dynamic unless I have reason to think differently, which would seem to preclude a block this long after the fact. Does that cover all bases? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. :) Enigmaman (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about this one? ] Wow. Enigmaman (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked that one. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Great job on Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-01-14/Tutorial Thanks for helping us learn Jeepday (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Makeb2

Hi Luna Santin,

I noticed you blocked the user for trying to restore the AfD tag to the current FA of the day. Given that the username/pattern of edits matches those of Makesbasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who put up the original AfD nom and is a blocked sockpuppet of Th45623j (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), may I suggest a more...permanent vacation?

Thanks! --jonny-mt 06:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Extended to indef, for now. Know I've seen that behavior, before, but didn't realize it was ongoing recently. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action! I've added an update to the thread at ANI. --jonny-mt 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for your message.

Before you came charging in to threaten me in the capacity of an administrator, I trust that you actually read the points being made and checked the edit history on the the page itself? To me it looks like you didn't so, based on this assumption, I would like to ask you two questions.

1. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and yet you seem to be talking about "concensus" in terms of building a democratic majority. Apart from the fact that this is against offical Misplaced Pages policy, the very claims being made about this article are that it reflects concensus but it is severely biased as that concensus comes from only one section of the community at large (and not even the majority section at that). Concensus involves everybody does it not? And though the contributors to an article may be in concensus, that is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that an article's content reflects the concensus of the intended audience, the actual "concensus" that should be achieved. I trust you understand the difference?
2. If a claim is being made about bias then it is imperative the "globalise" tag be attached to stop the audience being misled while any such discussion is going on. However, attempts to secure the tag onto the page, even after proposing valid changes, have been unsucessful. Instead, without discussion, tags were just removed. If the article can't be tagged and there is no fruitful discussion then the only remaining option is to make changes directly to the article. And yet again, without discussion, all changes have been just rolled backin an "edit warring" style, the very thing you accuse me of. So given that both the guidance tags (which don't actually change the content of the article) and propsed changes were rolled back without real discussion, the only option left from the start was arbitration, the last stage in the Dispute Resolution system that you infer is not being payed any attention. Am I correct in inferring, through the tone of your message, that you condone this kind of overall situation?

The issues raised in the article's talk pages go beyond the article's bias which has been proven to exist; the issues go to the very heart of English Misplaced Pages's ability to let its contributors manage content and to present unbiased and neutral information pertaining to the whole of the English-speaking world, not just the United States. Any attempt to block a user just because a "concensus" could not be reached between a non-US contributor and the rest of the (predominantly US) contributors could easily be interpreted as racism by the wider and properly balanced audience outside of Misplaced Pages's contributors, should that wider audience be given the opportunity to judge for themselves whether the article, and Misplaced Pages as a whole, is biased or not. Any person can give that audience such an opportunity regardless of their status as an editor within the system.

I am politely asking you to be impartial. Fairness, in Misplaced Pages articles, and in the way Misplaced Pages policy is applied by its administrators, is the cornerstone of Misplaced Pages's ethics and reputation, of which you are both an ambassador and a trustee. However, the fact that it appears that I am the only person you decided to notify, despite a continuous four-month stream of people who have blatantly flouted editing, etiquette, verification and neutrality policies, is evidence that Misplaced Pages itself is currently biased. It not an understatement to say that Misplaced Pages's reputation hangs in the balance when any claim of national bias appears to be unsolvable, so I am politley urging you to be cautious and fair in whatever actions you may deem necessary as an administrator of this system. Please either reprimand everybody in the situation or don't reprimand anybody, but reprimanding only one side makes you guilty of bias and instantly destroys your credibility as an administrator, and potentially the overall reputation of Misplaced Pages, irrespective of the system-level measures you are authorised to impose.

Andrew81446 (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)