User talk:Luna Santin: Difference between revisions

Talk – Sandbox – Blog

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

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

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for answering my "Spam" email problem.

Sudarat in NYC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudarat64 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Hello again, and many thanks for reverting the daft comment left by yet another JJonz sockpuppet on my talkpage. The things we deal with eh? Best wishes, Lradrama 13:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And thankyou also for going round and correcting the damage he/she caused by undoing my edits. Much appreciated. Lradrama 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lradrama 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.

Lradrama 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I had thought that one looked familiar, like somebody I'd run into before, but couldn't recall who they resembled. I'll keep an eye out in case they come back, but feel very free to grab my attention if need be. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

REVERT

Thanks for the revert of my talk page at one stage it was going back and forwards like a game of tennis Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page:-) I appreciate it. How have you been by the way? Long time no see!--SJP (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

US Air Force SERE article.

There was no discussion or notification before this article. Would you consider replacing it and discussing changes or seeing if the claim you made was even true, rather than simply deleting the article without reasonable notification? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The article as originally created was a blatant copyright violation, which is an on-sight deletion criterion (WP:CSD#G12). If you'd to rewrite the article without copyvio, feel free and you'll have my thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tough to debate it when you have blanked it. Can I ask who had the copyright? As far as I remember, most of it was taken from a US govt. site, which would not be a copyright violation. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, that is difficult to deal with -- you can't easily review the text, yourself, but you can ask other administrators to have a look, either at deletion review or the village pump. The text was copied from gosere.com; at this point I'm unable to confirm whether the site's material is {{PD-USgov}} but prefer to err on the side of caution until that can be established. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The site does claim a copyright, but it is the cadre of the SERE school itself. It is designed for people interested in attending the course or becoming cadre members. It is debateable whether they, as govt. employees, can even hold the material (much of which is directly from govt. sources) as copyrighted. There is case law that disallows federal employees from copyrighting things produced as part of their employment. Even the contact email for the site goes to an official US Air Force email address. In any case, I just feel that the article should have been left in place and perhaps re-written in part, rather than deleted with no notice at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, fair point, this seems worth review from more than just the two of us. I'd encourage you to submit a request at deletion review (I can help with that if you like). – Luna Santin (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection of User talk:24.11.209.71?

Seems like a waste of time, recommend semi-protection. Darkspots (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the block extension as well--didn't want to seem bloodthirsty by recommending that as well, but this is clearly not an IP that productive edits get made from. Darkspots (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. :) Prefer to avoid semi on user talk, usually, but this user seemed so unlikely to change... – Luna Santin (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Update added to WP:USER

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I finally got around to adding [1] the stuff we discussed at WP:VPP and your talk page to the WP:USER guideline. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of seasons to indicate time

I completely accept your comments relating to specific geographical locations. Obviously a reference to summer in New Zealand refers to that period in that country, especially if it about an event which is specifically related to that season. My problem is when it is used in relation to a non-specific location, e.g. we frequently hear about new motion pictures being released 'in the fall'. Given that most films these days are released more or less simultaneously world wide, how do we know when it is happening? (Of course we here in the better half of the world know that 99 times out of a hundred it's the northern fall, but again, it is a less than accurate description.) 203.49.148.66 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. :x Release dates in particular are frequently pretty vague... best I can think of is proposing the use of quarters instead of seasons, although they don't quite line up perfectly and some people might complain about the conversion if source material specifically names a season. If you haven't already, the village pump or talk pages for the manual of style might be good centralized places to get attention (I might start a thread about this to the VP later tonight, if you haven't yet). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:150.101.226.26

I'm obviously not disagreeing with the block, but don't you think you should make it at least somewhat longer? The IP has a long history of vandalism and I don't think 1 hour is going to do a lot of good...   jj137 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Luna, I just blocked for 1 month--the anonymous editor was right back at it after the hour expired. I welcome a review of the block. Dppowell (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Awhoops, sorry -- was in the middle of a long edit and didn't reload any pages, so missed both of these messages until now. Hadn't taken a close look at contribs prior to today's, but Dppowell's block makes sense now that I have. Thanks to you both. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Njection

I dont understand why this article was deleted I read about the company in the NYTimes. I will try to re-post it without it sounding so much like an "advertisement" I guess but I don't see what about it sounded like an ad... Drewhamilton (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting this as gently as possible, I have reason to believe that you have an overriding conflict of interest with regards to this article; it's telling that you returned from a nearly one-month hiatus shortly after it was deleted, replaced the article, and then immediately went back on hiatus, almost as if you'd been prompted to do so, off-site. It's hardly a leap of faith to surmise that (for good or for ill) your only current objective is to get this article posted. At this time I will delete the page and temporarily salt it against recreation. I have no particular objection if an uninvolved user wishes to recreate the article; should anyone wish to do so before the protection expires, they need only contact me. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this. Look at my history please. I post articles about all sorts of things all the time. I've been very busy but am returning to Wikipedia now that life has slowed down again. (My brother had a tic where he was jutting his head out like a Chicken.) I am focused on this article because it got pulled which is upsetting to (I work hard on all of them) and also bizarre as they are obviously extremely notable. Please check my history before accusing me of a conflict of interest. I've have to have to have a personal reason to want to post many topics!! And a personal reason to want to clean up vandalism. This is an unfair and completely irrational accusation. Drewhamilton (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tokyoredlightdistrict

Hello. It is my belief that tokyoredlightdistrict.com provides useful information on the topic of Japan prostitution. As it is a useful & on topic link, I saw nothing wrong with updating your links. Have a nice day, I won't edit your page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.91.101 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Since you've stopped adding the link, I assume you understood and (at least more or less) agree with the message I left you. Best of luck with your site, in any case. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Xdf3ydrhsdfyhvdgrydb8trury

You beat me to it by about 10 seconds. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They didn't seem to be up to much good. I did have a hunch you'd probably block them, too, if you saw it. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference

I have only print references, none on the interweb. Wetter Roberson Dies At Midnight (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk; issue seems to be resolved, as user was unable to produce any references. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockwatch

Hiya, just ran across your Sockwatch subpages, which I think are a pretty cool idea.  :) I'm currently dealing with MarkBA (talk · contribs) (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MarkBA), who keeps popping up. I'm debating whether I should create a sockwatch page, or add a list of identifiable behaviors onto his category page. Do you have any guidance here? I'm still coming up to speed on dealing with Wikipedia sockpuppets, so any advice would be appreciated.  :) --Elonka 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I created those at some point after having trouble keeping track of a vandal who was hitting almost every page maintained by a particular wikiproject; the centerpiece is User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/X -- the template's located as a subpage so I can call it easily. If you want to use or copy it, feel free. :) I think on some of those subpages, I've added userpages of prominent socks to the listing, both to see if anybody removes relevant tagging and as a guide for others who may want to look into the situation. Most often, I think, the best solution with prolific sockmasters is a combination of checkuser (if possible) and getting more people involved. If somebody keeps at it for a long time, it's sometimes worth listing at Wikipedia:Long term abuse... I admit I tend not to make such listings, but they're sometimes handy if there's a recurring need to get people up to speed quickly. Browsing WP:SSP can be a decent way to learn about these things. I mostly learn as I go, in this area. Finding and identifying socks is usually harder than stopping them, once found, unless they're very persistent. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dreamweaverjack/Trial

Please can you remove this page from Wikipedia, as I set it up as a test page to see how the category tag - Category:Proposed deletion - worked, thanks Dreamweaverjack (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like somebody beat me to it. When it comes to deleting pages in your userspace, {{db-user}} is frequently an option. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talkpage

Hi,

Basically, for some reason, Tennis expert seems to find my edits completely unreasonable, even though I am perfectly within my rights to do them, and they do not even radically affect the article anyway. He seems to believe its wrong for me to remove information, but I believe most of what I have deleted is non-notable (Im not sure how much you know about tennis, but if you know quite a lot, wouldnt you agree describing her entire run at a Tier II tournament is completely unnecessary?). He keeps saying I need to wait for consensus from the other editors before putting through what I believe to be a fairly standard edit; for one thing, I thought Wikipedia:Be bold allows me to put through an edit without consensus, and for another, Tennis expert is thus far the only person to register discontent at my edits; the only person to have really chipped into the dispute, Dudesleeper, appears to agree the article needs serious work. I realise vandalism is probably not the right word (I only used that in reference to the fact he had the nerve to call my initial edits vandalism), but I stand by that automatically reverting everything I do to the article is completely unacceptable. He has not even given any proper criticisms of the article, only that it removes information (which, again, Wikipedia:Be bold permits if it improves the article) and I would also like to point out I have attempted to start a discussion about it several times (see the Sharapova discussion page, and his talkpage), and everytime, Tennis expert has responded by either removing my comments or randomly throwing baseless accusations at me.

Wouldnt you agree that what Tennis expert is doing is unacceptable? 92.3.138.123 (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you're concerned, but prefer to avoid taking sides at the moment -- for now I'm more interested in getting the two of you talking to each other, rather than past each other, if possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the balls in his court, Ive already tried to open up a discussion on his talkpage and he just deletes my comments everytime. 92.3.138.123 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've read your posts on my discussion page and then deleted them. Your long history demonstrates, in my opinion, that you are primarily interested in harassing me and being disruptive on the Maria Sharapova article and elsewhere. As I have told you before, I am not interested in debating anything with you on my discussion page because of that history. You are, of course, free to post on article discussion pages to your heart's content - just don't expect to interact with me on mine. Been there, tried that, been burned too often.... Tennis expert (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So rather than talking things over, you'd rather just revert each other into oblivion? I see that you accuse 92.3 of "harassing" you and "being disruptive," but saying either of these things does not make it so. This does not seem to be a viable long-term solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Tennis experts post demonstrates how hard it is to find consensus with him, Luna. I also note that in his post, he again referred to his amusingly random accusation of me being a sockpuppet once again. No offence, man, but most people arent going to take you seriously when you start doing things like that with no evidence whatsoever. If youre ever ready to start a proper discussion, feel free. 92.3.158.227 (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!

For your assistance during my unblock process. and of course, those kind worda in the admin notice board.--ometzit<col> (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help out. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I inquired about a possible rangeblock. I think the range is too wide, but it's worth a shot. Enigma ^message 06:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you sprotected the relevant user/user talk pages, though, which should help stem the incessant vandalism. Enigma ^message 06:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully a healthy combination of WP:RBI and semiprot will be able to carry the day. Prefer to avoid rangeblocks, but that depends in part on how persistent our misguided friend is. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I take a different approach. I'd rather rangeblock and get rid of the vandal (assuming there isn't much collateral damage) than have to semiprot all those pages. Protection is supposed to be a last resort, if there's no way to stop the vandalism. In this case, there is a way to stop it: by preventing this misguided individual from editing in the near future. That may prove to be difficult. I anxiously await Alison's answer. Enigma ^message 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Both options have their benefits and pitfalls. All the IPs so far have fit on 85.103.0.0/17, 85.107.128.0/17, 85.108.128.0/17, and 88.240.0.0/17, but each of those ranges has only been used once or twice, and there's nothing to say more won't become involved. Rangeblocks do sometimes bring closure to the immediate problem, but are often even more prone to collateral problems than protection is. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

Thanks for saving my page from vandalism. The user in question has been banned for making legal threats (details here [2]). This is just another of his IP incarnations. So you should go right ahead and block him. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. :) Have they been at this for a while, or is this a new development in the last day or two? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since 13 June, I think. In various incarnations, of course. People have tried to reason with him but he's just abusive. I was going to investigate his claims today but if this is the thanks I get I don't think I'll bother. I've got better things to do than run after rattles which have been thrown out of prams. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. I'll try to keep an eye out for more. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Those IPs appear to be dynamic, they are making the same edit and are registered to the same company but in different ranges. Someone needs to add the dynamic anon talk header to those. 209.244.31.53 (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Luna, I've noticed you seemed quite perturbed by my block of Alextrevelian 006 (talk · contribs) - I have explained my reasons for the block on the ANI thread relating to this. Things seem to have been resolved, but you did seem particularly upset about this; if you would like any further discussion regarding this, my talk page is open. Neıl 龱 15:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (and replied on your talk, earlier today). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You have an email

Giggity goo. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So I do. :o – Luna Santin (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is done! ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Request block extension

You recently blocked User:80.193.85.83 for one hour, can you please extend that. The IP is on its 11th block and the last one was for 2400 hours. As far as I can tell the IP has never made a constructive edit. -Icewedge (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. On closer inspection, I've opted to block the address for three months (similar in length to the previous block). – Luna Santin (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

whoops missed your reply

But what about [[Category:Blue Ensigns|British Indian Ocean Territory]]? Category:Blue Ensigns does not have a category: British Indian Ocean Territory.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Seems I missed or forgot the start of this conversation. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_June_23#Differecnes68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. But you may notice that, when looking at Category:Blue Ensigns, the article Flag of the British Indian Ocean Territory is listed under 'B' even though its title begins with an 'F' -- the sortkey doing its work. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

But why not just say [[Category:Blue Ensigns|B]] instead of [[Category:Blue Ensigns|British Indian Ocean Territory]]?68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

An excellent question. :) When alphabetizing, it may be useful to get the first few letters, but at some point it may get to be silly. I suppose convention is to go with the full title, for the sake of reducing potential confusion. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

Thanks, left a note there. Khoikhoi 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Troubles

Hi Luna. Thank you for your note. Maybe you can help me in this regard. I am a new user and was anxious to contribute in certain topics where I feel I have something to contribute. I have found though almost all my edits, articles and references under constant attack since day one. I have done some clumsy edits at the beginning but I have not used the wiki tools to complain and thwart but it seems there are others who are very good at exploting these features, and even the editors, in silencing contributers whose contributions are not of a certain bend. The very users who have incessantly undone my edits, removed references and pictures I have contributed are also the same ones who have launched complaints against me it turns out. Please look into Sasun and Bitlis articles and you will see what I mean. Van and Erzurum articles are blocked now, only AFTER my edits were removed for example. I could not even place a reference, a new book "Armenian Rebellion at Van", in an article titled "Armenian Resistance (read:rebellion) in Van. Erich Feigl article was targeted for delition by this very user for example, and this is an award winning, world renown producer and author. Where does it end?--Murat (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Luna!

Our little friend Grawp has nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to bounce from IP to IP making a fool of himself. Thanks for blocking that IP. You are one of the good ones. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Question, Luna

Hi Luna, What is AN (referenced on my talk page)? Is it Admin Noticeboard? Also, I have updated the talk page for the article in an attempt to stop the "edit war" and clarified my intention on Audemus Defendere's talk page (proper authorities = Wikipedia Admin, not a legal threat). Hopefully the issue is now settled! Best, --Dem1970 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

block msg

Hi. I think you forgot to tag User talk:67.81.106.67 with the appropriate message after blocking the account? I'm not sure what to do. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For common vandalism, I tend not to leave a block notice; they most likely know why they're blocked, already, and MediaWiki:Blockedtext offers more relevant information, anyway. Appreciate the note, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront

because wiki will persist in its heavy bais against stormfront .... I am afraid to say im goign to have to consider "wiki" my enemy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.252.4 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. If you view things in such simple "us or them" terms, Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve Windom Rides Again

We seem to have a couple of new editors; one of whom reverted Dem1970s last, and another with only an IP ID. Anyhow, Dem is now on the talk page. I have also tried to set out the issues as I see them, and posted a link on the WP:BLP page. Thanks again for the help. Audemus Defendere (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve Windom Rides Again, Part 2

Color me naive. I had hoped that the talk page on the article might get people involved, and give us some consensus on the article. Because of that, I didn't mention the inactivity on Dem1970's clear legal threat.

My reward?

• Dem1970 has made another legal threat. - "carefully read Irish laws on the subject...and Alabama law as well ..." - "Maybe once you brush up on Irish law, you'll even consider removing certain aspects of your discussion on this talk page."
• Cleo123 has swept in and seized control of the article, giving it a far more pro-Windom tack than even Dem1970 did - basing her entire conclusion (and the language and tone of the article) on a 95 word, unsourced, unbylined New York Times "news brief" that does not take into account the later developments I carefully sourced.
• What is even more upsetting, Cleo123 posts a Talk comment which is, to understate it, insulting of my integrity, inappropriate in tone, and indicative of minimal research and reasoning skills. It's "cyberstalking" to do an article count after you (Luna) asked about the importance of the topics? Give me a break ...
• She says I was "WAY OUT OF LINE" (her emphasis) for "speculating" about Dem1970s identity in talk. (I guess you were, too.) Except I didn't speculate, I noted his self-identification as the source of the pic he uploaded, and the WP:AB issue that raised - or the copyright issue it raised if he's not the subject.

Look at my contributions - they are often political, but not always. Wikipedia once seemed like a worthwhile pastime. If this Cleo person has some sort of administrative power with the Biography Project, it isn't. And if someone with administrative power doesn't step in and bring this back toward the center, it won't be.

You seem decent and reasonable. I'll give you a shot at persuading me it is still worthwhile, but please take it soon, and boldly.

(And I keep getting bot signatures on posts I think I have signed? Is it the system? Me? Audemus Defendere (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying that another editor has "minimal reasoning skills" sure sounds like a personal attack to me. Cleo123 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, the irony, this from my "cyberstalking" and "obssessive" accuser. Sorry, Luna, you don't deserve this. But that shot? It now needs to be sooner, and bolder. Audemus Defendere (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how telling Audemus to familiarize himself with the law is in any way a legal threat. I think anyone writing biographies on wikipedia should be aware of national and international law to avoid potential problems. If I were arguably defaming someone, I would want to be informed so as to be armed with the knowledge of how to stay out of trouble in the future (like, to a smaller degree, how people told me to brush up on Wikipedia rules when I jumped in, so as to avoid problems here)! Dem1970 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated use of "legal" language can indeed cause a chilling effect, and has in past situations been interpreted as a legal threat. Obviously you are aware that your counterpart perceives this language as such a threat, and obviously they've gotten your point, so please find another way to phrase the message. Your safest bet to avoid a block under WP:NLT is to limit yourself to the discussion of Wikipedia policies; you and others are of course more than free to pursue all available legal options, but may not edit the wiki while doing so or openly preparing to do so -- in short, you can edit or sue, but not both at once. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Luna, I can't sue period. I am not an injured party. I have been pointing out Wikipedia policies but that is clearly not getting anywhere. Audemus just added another long comment on the talk page about the same subject. Honestly, this is getting out of hand. Since I'm new, I have no clue what else to do at this point. Suggestions? Dem1970 (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is running a bit wild, but it's important to remember that "victory" (if that's a good term to use at all, here) is not determined by whoever wrote the most or got the last word in. Consensus is the guiding rule by which content decisions are generally made. In the long run, what the article says a week, a month, or even a year from now is more important than what it says today. That's a bit vague, I know, but I've found the thought helpful in other disputes. If you have objections to the article's current content, make sure you've voiced those objections on the article's talk page, and generally just join in on the discussion when you feel like you can. That'd be my advice, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HarrisonFord101

I would also support unblock to CHU. I agree that brand new accounts with no GFDL significant contributions should just create a new account but because his account was created in Jan '08, he's got some "time under his belt" so to speak. –xenocidic (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) I see they've been unblocked, or I'd suggest you went ahead and did it. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

cheers =) –xenocidic (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on the edit war, I was under the impression that users were not allowed to remove warnings issued to them until a reasonable amount of time had passed. I've left the matter alone, and another user has reported the IP address for blocking. --Dbo789 (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a common feeling (and one I used to share), but over the past year or so the issue's gotten more attention. Thanks. (In the meantime, of course, I'll be watching 24.163.199.100 (talk · contribs) to see what they do next) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Its just that that user has been annoying beforehand

Well , it happened years ago. It does not matter anymore. I will stop messing with his account. --Proping (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Not sure what this was all about but thanks for stepping in Luna...Cheers--Kelapstick (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I was hoping you might have some idea who that was. :) Glad to have helped, in any case. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert! :) Acalamari 01:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You betcha. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to tell you that what you did to my friend, Sacome, was rude. You should allow him to edit pages again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corco (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WHAT?

You do not have the right to block my friend Sacome to edit pages. And if you can block people, I should be able to as well. If I already can, please tell me. Also, unblock Sacome. -Corco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corco (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators may block users from editing the wiki, temporarily or indefinitely, as described in our blocking policy. Assuming that Sacome (talk · contribs) is the individual you're talking about, their edits included both vandalism and personal attacks, neither of which is helpful to building an encyclopedia. If Sacome wishes to be unblocked, they're free to get the attention of an uninvolved administrator by requesting unblocking as described on the "you've been blocked" page they'll see when trying to edit. Anyhow, I see that you've been editing more helpfully, so, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging pages

On page Wikipedia:Lists of basic topics page the following is written:

If you create a basic topics list in article space, be sure to place a {{under construction}} template at the top of it. Otherwise, you run the risk that someone will come along and nominate the list for deletion after you barely get started. For example, the List of basic Canada topics was nominated for deletion at AfD when it only included a few links. Someone had to jump in and develop it fast in order to save it.

A safer approach is to create new basic topics lists in this WikiProject's space, starting the page title with "Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics/Draft/". One must have a compelling reason to delete a draft, since it is by definition under development, and all problems are subject to being discussed on its talk page before it gets moved to article space. There are lists of drafts under development, below.

This is PRECISELY what has happened to me - a bot renamed these articles out of Draft mode (you can see this history - which I accepted) and then this happened. The lists will be extensively added to - but not RIGHT NOW. What do you think Luna Santin? A single page would not be anywhere near sufficient - there are possibly several thousand entries I would like to provide access to alphabetically. Granitethighs (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... a list of such substantial size would probably be very difficult to browse. Either picking out main articles, or topical breakdown of some sort would probably be a good idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have devised these pages to be operated through a template on sustainability Template:TopicTOC-Sustainability. I have already prepared lists on major topics - this is simply one other (very useful) way of searching for info. Once again, this has the potential to be large, like the Geography one.

It would be VERY useful - that is why it is a recommended Wikipedia methodology and, surely, why it should be permitted. I should have taken the warning about page deletion discussed above more seriously. "Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics/Draft/". What can I do? Granitethighs (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but breaking the alphabetical list into 26 pages probably only makes it that much harder to search. Easy enough to split it up again if there are really that many entries. I'm not familiar with any other alphabetical list broken down by letter (some might split into two or three pages, but a full 26 seems a bit much). – Luna Santin (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What I am proposing is demonstrated on page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_basic_geography_topics. There will be fewer articles in Sustainability but the principle is the same. This geography page is treated by other Wikipedians as exemplary: I am not sure why you should resist. What will happen to other people who follow the Wikiproject recommendations regarding basic lists of topics? It would seem that either that page of recommendations should be replaced or reworded or that deletion of similar approach to sustainability be reconsidered. Surely you must see the inconsistency, especially considering the warning about deletion? Granitethighs (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a good point; one way or another, this should be clarified. Unfortunately, I've got to go for a while, but I'll look into this later. If it turns out I'm in error, I'll be happy to reverse any merges I've yet performed. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Great power

Have you tried to understand what the dispute is about? What about the sources? Not worth. You want original research in Wikipedia. Even then India will be in the list. Can be in the Great power list but still not an absolute power to challenge the U.S can be put in the emerging power list. The same will apply for Britain, France and China.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've glanced over things, yes; however, my role here is not as a party to the dispute. I've protected the page to prevent edit warring, and to encourage involved parties to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Please do so. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unblock

I have left a note on the users talk page. Thanks for dropping by! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for cleaning up the tables in List of Judy Garland awards and honors. I appreciate it! Otto4711 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

merging again

Thanks for "pumping" the issue. You might want to look at 'Lists of environmental topics' that has been in place for some time now - there are possibly many other pages like this, formed as part of the Wikiproject 'Lists of basic lists'. For sustainability there is, of course, a list of categories (about 16 I think) and a list of articles (173 I think) - this list of articles fits very nicely on one page. However, the net of connections extends way beyond this list - to possibly several thousand. I am prepared to put these together, and although this sounds a bit megalomaniac it will be a great resource for users of Wikipedia. In working on the topic I for one would give an arm and a leg for such a search list - and there would be many more like me. If you think this point is valid or useful could you add it to the "pump" please? Granitethighs (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Popular Culture

Please reconsider your peremptory close of this AFD since this action seems more a case of WP:STEAM than WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, "I may reconsider this decision and allow the AfD to proceed if reliable, third party-published sources discuss the phrase in a manner that is both encyclopedic and not isolated to Wikipedia. Such sources, if any, can be presented at my talk page." – Luna Santin (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not own this article or topic. The AFD discussion is the proper place to make such points and this cannot proceed while it is prematurely terminated. Do you refuse to reopen the discussion? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Never claimed to own it. Can you demonstrate there's some point to continuing the discussion (ie: those sources I asked for)? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to address the topic properly since you have deleted the article already. I shall now take the matter to DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Colonel Warden per the comment by myself and (more importantly) Zelmerszoetrop's comment that:

" COMPLETELY apart from the xkcd references, one has to admit that the phrase "In Popular Culture" has gained widespred notoriety on wikipedia, message boards, and various other internet meme carriers "

(emphasis added by me) I will be asking Zelmerszoetrop and/or looking into this myself, but i think that reopening the AfD would encourage others to share their knowledge in that area, too. ~ FerralMoonrender (T • C) 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Have a flower. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, thanks. :) I'm not sure what exactly prompted all of this attention you've gotten, recently, but I hope it hasn't turned you off contributing. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh nooo... I haven't been discouraged. I anticipated something like this happening, and why I wrote the quick missive. The funny thing is, I had to apply for this name in the firstplace, as the last one was my real name and I didnt think that was too kosher. So, an upper echelon admin type dude had to approve it in the first place. Ol well. In the end, no harm done! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make pretty userpages to wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits added significant content (42%) to your userpage. You are reminded that userpages are not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize, but a place to hang around with no friends nor communicating with other people. Moreover, per our non free content policy, fair use is not allowed outside of the article space. You are therefore strongly advised by our legal team to remove this funny quote from Douglas Adams before he sues you for moral prejudice. The next time you make a good userpage, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. -- lucasbfr ^talk is kidding ;) 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)