User talk:Luna Santin

Talk – Sandbox – Blog

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

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

template:Gestures

Any luck finding a replacement image for the template? RJFJR (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my. I'd looked for a bit without any luck, but had forgotten about that, since then. Let me go digging once more, when I get a chance; very busy weekend for me, but I'll try to get to it as soon as I'm able. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... searching Flikr for "hand" and "pointing hand" got me a sculpture (cc-by-sa), and led into "manicule" which includes a few other samples (all cc-by). Do any of those strike your fancy? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Congratulations, indeed. Well done. I'm very, very glad to have you on the team. Well done indeed. Okay, that's the ceremonies, now get to work! :) - Alison ^❤ 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :D I'm curious to see how this goes, but will probably become a bundle of questions before too long. We may want to look into recruiting another clerk or two. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Very well deserved, so glad you made it. — Rlevse • Talk • 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was never any doubt Luna that you would be one of the "chosen" one. And i have to agree with Alison, she and the other checkusers really deserve some help and i think i speak on behalf of the entire community in saying we trust you entirely with this additional but very valuable tool. You will be a master soon enough. Best 211.30.12.197 (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and likewise! -- Avi (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! I look forward to working with you. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's a done deal. Remember I told you you'd be a good CU that long while back? Well, I told you so! Well done. ;-) You'll do great, Luna. Anthøny ✉ 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to you, sir! I cannot think of a finer admin to trust with checkuser! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! It's been a very interesting weekend, between this and a few other things. By now I'm just about speechless, but happy with things. The outstanding trust and support from the community is very much appreciated; I'll do my best. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people are obviously delighted with your appointment :) - Alison ^❤ 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. :) A rousing welcome from all around, I see. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixing these vandal moves of articles

I'm not clear how I do it. I'm sure it's simple, but I'm new at this Admin stuff and it's not clear to me what to do. What I've done is probably wrong, so I've stopped! Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't despair -- that's exactly what they want. ;) Taken one page at a time, the process is fairly simple: move the page back, delete the resulting redirect. The only difficulty comes from needing to do this for a large number of page at once, but we're fortunate to have a number of scripts and tools at our disposal. For example, when looking at a given user's pagemove log, I get a quick button to revert any given move, and can easily get to a delete link from the resulting "move successful" page. Some users have written or installed even more powerful tools. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to thank you for this explanation. Doug Weller (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I hope it was helpful. Did you have any other questions, while we're here? :) – Luna Santin (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

moved H,AGGEɍ? to Supreme Being over redirect: revert

Can I ask why you did this and what it means? Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting pagemove vandalism... unless you really do think H,AGGEɍ is a better title? :p – Luna Santin (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No... Just wondering why 'H,AGGE' had been redirected to Supreme Being. If this was a term for the Supreme Being in some obscure religion it might have been something that should be mentioned in the article, so I thought I would check. I see now what you were doing. Thanks.

Glad I could clear that up. :) Thanks for asking. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Feedback request

Can you give a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ace2690#Ace2690 please? -- Avi (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits by IP was very interesting, there. Commented at the case page, I'd say you're probably right. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:D

I feel much better now knowing that one of Wikipedia's truly stand-out administrators has checkuser priveledges. Let's whack those vandals - and their socks! Valtoras (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'll do my best. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

For cleaning up my talkpage. Vishnava _talk 20:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help out a bit. Keep up the good work, out there. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Chess

Hi. Luna. Thanks for restoring Chess after vandal moved it. Unfortunately Talk:Chess is still MIA. -- Philcha (talk)

Ah, shoot! Thanks for pointing that out. Should be okay, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Philcha (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear

That was embarrassing -- thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it happens. I thought about nagging you, but it looked like more of a misclick than a scripting error (which would indeed be more pressing). – Luna Santin (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for going out of your way

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for going out of you way to review my CSD taggings. It gives me some comfort that I haven't messed up the Wiki's newest articles. Thanks :D NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet! Just kidding. Glad I could help out a bit. It's tough to get solid feedback, around here, and sometimes the only responses we get are the negative ones. The more diligent users we have on new page patrolling -- or really watching over the wiki in general -- the better off we'll be. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For continually blocking those IPs. Rgoodermote  00:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course. :) Usually you only get that sort of unfortunate treatment after doing something to help out, so keep up the good work! – Luna Santin (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

"Clerking about" hehe, love it. I do have a question actually; is this request dealt with? You've written "most were blocked". I checked all the users, and all were blocked. Are there more, or is it OK to archive? (I also assume You-know-who is he who must not be named?) Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 10:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your talk. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Luna Santin for her diligence and extraordinary effort in fighting vandalism and protecting the user and talk pages of innocent Wikipedians. Keep up the good work. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Whew- thanks for taking care of that guy, and for fixing my pages (not that I don't like Top Gun, but...). I was so busy keeping an eye on the movie page he kept violating, I didn't even notice what he did to me. Consider this barnstar a small token of appreciation for helping me and for all the other work you do to fight evil. You Admins are great. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. :) Had a few minutes to spare, between classes, seemed like a good enough thing to do. Take care. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You, too. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkback!

Hello, Luna Santin. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blah Blah Blah

Hopefully that is enough of a descriptive heading. But why is it that you didn't block the IPs that made those edits to your page and Sam Korn's? Should that have happened on Jeske Couriano's page he would have given them 3 months each. Different admins have different ways of dealing with such IPs and now i have seen the lot. From no block at all, all the way to 3 months. I guess you know best, those IPs seem not to make any contribs at all except for those kind of particular edits. Thanks 220.239.56.131 (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit) I have a feeling i know what your going to say. Blocks are preventative not punitive. And funny enough those IPs have not edited again :-D 220.239.56.131 (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I used to be more proactive about blocking in such cases, but as you mention, they're usually only used for one edit each, so I guess the payoff is a bit questionable if I'm in the middle of something else. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism help?

Hi!

You just fixed vandalism on Thomas Negovan, and the same ip address has been vandalizing that page for years now... how can this be prevented in the future?

Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.62.107 (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

sprot ?

Hi Luna - how come this got through if you protected the page yesterday? May need to do it again? Tvoz/talk 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see - it was only protected for a few hours. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Sorry for the delayed reply. I do try to keep protection short, on user talk; especially with these recent sprees, even short protection seems to be frequently enough to bear the brunt of the attack or get them to move on. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

He's just done it again - I'd say it needs protection again? Tvoz/talk 07:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Semiprot it is; still shortish, but longer than last time. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Persistent fellow, I'd say. Cheers Tvoz/talk 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for the vandal reversion on my user page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. :) Cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

... and for the triple protection of mine! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I just prot'd my own :) I guess someone doesn't like checkusers. I wonder who .... - Alison ^❤ 08:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and that's yours done, and Luna's now. I'm beginning to detect a pattern here - hold on .... :) - Alison ^❤ 09:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They will probably come after me next for reverting. Oh well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 09:06

They have been getting pretty persistent about that, lately; not sure what exactly they think it will accomplish, but I guess we'll see. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

An E-Mail

You gots one! - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 08:40

Replied. Let me know if you still need any help with that. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

....and I replied back. All good now though :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 15, 2008 @ 06:45

A Question

Do you or someone you know have access to AWB? I ask because alot of people (including myself on accident) have been adding [[Religious]] in place of [[Religious broadcasting]] to alot of radio station page and changing all those around would be very time-consuming. If you or someone you know could fix that via AMB, I would greatly appericate it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 15, 2008 @ 08:44 08:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I do have access to AWB. May have a chance to look at this (or get someone else to) later. First step should be building a list of pages to (possibly) edit... probably check Special:Whatlinkshere/Religious for intersection with some relevant broadcasting category, and work from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Whew! That took awhile, but I finally got a full list. You can find it here on my sandbox page. If you could, have the links look like [[Religious broadcasting|Religious]] <--that. Thanks for your help, I appericate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 15, 2008 @ 21:40

Just wanted to bring the above ^^^ to your attention in case you missed it with the vandalism earlier. Sorry I didn't catch, was working on some pages when all that was going on. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 04:55

I did in fact. :) Will have more time for that in a sec. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. I will leave the list up on my sandbox page as long as you need it. Take Care and Have a Great Thursday...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 05:38

When you get the chance (no rush on this either) would you mind showing me how to use AWB, cause there are a couple changes (like what you are doing now) I would like to do and would like to learn AWB so I don't have to bug ya each time :) When you have the time, no rush. Take Care and Thanks Again....NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 06:50 06:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AWB itself is fairly expansive, but easy enough to learn in pieces. In a nutshell: build a list of pages, build a list of rules to edit your listed pages, and go through a series of bot-assisted edits (it shows you its "best guess" diff, which usually only requires tiny changes if any, provided you've set up good rules). I wouldn't call myself totally proficient with it, I'm still learning its ins and outs as I go -- mostly just picked it up over time. Some knowledge of regular expressions is very helpful, but not strictly required. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to use it for what you are doing now, essentially updating formats so they link to where they are supposed to, small stuff :) When you say "rules" is that what I want it to do, like "change Religious to Religious broadcasting"? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 07:00

Ah, I see. For now I'm just going with a (very) simple find-n-replace, case-sensitive for "[[Religious"->"[[Religious broadcasting" and "[[religious"->"[[religious broadcasting". Which unfortunately turns any existing "[[religious broadcasting" links into "[[religious broadcasting broadcasting", but that'll be easy enough to fix by switching to regex if it shows up too often for my liking. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I seen one of those "religious broadcasting broadcasting" ones on KMBI and deleted the second "broadcasting" for ya. :) So, all and all not that hard to use. If they allow me (I requested a couple ago), I might come to you with some questions if they is OK. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 07:07

Sure. If you like, I can leave what's left of this one for you (about 187 out of 250-ish left from the original list). – Luna Santin (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...just amend the list (on my sandbox page) where you left off and I will pick it up from there when (and if) they approve me. Take Care and Thanks for Answering my Questions...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 07:11

....and I got approved! How sweet is that! If you want me to give the rest a shot, I can. Just let me know where on the list you left off. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 07:24

Excellent. :) I've saved the remaining list to User:Neutralhomer/Sandbox4 for you. Be wary to check the edits -- it's quite difficult to account for the wide variety of things people will type out on a page. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it skip alot of them for you? Cause it was skipping like crazy for me, even if it had "Religious" in them. It wouldn't stop, just blew on by. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 08:29

It generally will skip if it hasn't made any changes; I'm not sure why it would do so, specifically, here. =\ Any luck on that? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do, so I was waiting to see what your reply was. It didn't make any changes to the ones it skipped. I erased the ones it did make changes to and put them back through and it skipped everything. :/ - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 21:01

Hmm... that is odd. I don't recall ever having major problems with that. =\ Guess all I can suggest is double-checking your replacement rules (to make sure it should be replacing on these pages) and your skip rules (to make sure it shouldn't be skipping them). If that doesn't help, there is an #awb channel on freenode that might be helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest (and embarrassingly) I think AWB might be a bit out of my league when it comes to computer knowledge. It took me a couple to make the little bugger work last night. When I did, I searched each page (that did load) for "Religious" and changed it from "Religious" to "Religious broadcasting|Religious". - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 21:14

Question regarding seperating articles

If I wanted to separate a large article into smaller ones what is the correct procedure? I know about using move, but that only does 1 article, right? Dr. Stantz (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, on the move question. :) It's probably easiest to just cut-n-paste the article into smaller pieces (each on its own page), then work from there to get formatting and such fixed if it needs to be. For GFDL compliance when splitting pages multiple users have edited, it's important to make sure each "child" article has a link back to its parent, either via an edit summary in each page's history, or using talk page notes. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

CU

Come to the en cu channel. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! :) Turns out I was joining a typo by accident... – Luna Santin (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

One more "MascotGuy" sock

Hello, stranger. I was the one lurking as an anon who tagged those MascotGuy socks which you blocked (and it seems you found one more) but there's still the original account: User:Campfire Guy. I had to log on in order to leave you the message, so I'll be off. No need to respond on my talk page since, well, I don't have one. Take care. You are a genuine asset to this site and it seems I still care enought to log on and tell you so. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so I missed one. :) Thanks for pointing that out. Glad to see you're still around, at least in spirit. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Having to log on anyway got me to thinking it might be more honest to just reopen the account since I left in good standing. So...here I am! Guess that's what I get for trying to post to a semi-protected talk page. I blame you for my getting off the wagon, you know.  :) My e-mail goes to my work address, so I won't be able to answer on the weekends. In the meantime, I've been dying to contribute some new articles on local history, some photos on Commons and at least one new bio on a famous exhibition drag racer of my acquiantance. More than worthy of an article and certainly a DYK candidate once I write it. I'll leave the vandal-slaying to you admins and I'll leave the occasional rollback to, well, me. I was amazed to see that I still had my rollback privileges! Anyway, I greatly appreciate the kind message. You are truly one of my favorite users (even though you bought me out of retirement). Talk to ya soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too, for doing a CU on the new account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're back among the living, PMD. :) Acknowledged, on the rest; we'll see where this one goes, I guess. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

seaQuest characters articles

User:Hammersoft keeps removing images from the character articles. There is only under four per page, which he said was fine here Talk:List_of_recurring_characters_on_seaQuest_DSV. Now keeps erasing all of them saying "It's not the number; it's the nature of use." The articles are:
Main Characters of seaQuest DSV season 1
Main Characters of seaQuest DSV season 2
Characters of seaQuest 2032

Aren't a few considered OK?

Dr. Stantz (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• It depends entirely on the situation. In this case, no. See Talk:List_of_recurring_characters_on_seaQuest_DSV#Image_removals. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• • And I disagree with you, It meets Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free content "using more than five is likely unacceptable." (less than five). please see Talk:List_of_recurring_characters_on_seaQuest_DSV#Image_removals. Dr. Stantz (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I've reverted again, and replaced the content with a montage image in line with Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles #1. I strongly recommend you do not revert again. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• WP:FUR is probably a better forum. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Caution

I saw your response on this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Apteva. You advised caution so is nothing is going to come of this? Note that I filed this case on the 9th but screwed put the filing so it didn't go anywhere - Delphi234 was tipped off at that point. I've been dealing with this guy for over a year and the sock accounts are not limited to the ones I listed. I don't know what all tools Admins have to identify socks but would similar editing patterns be considered evidence. For example say an IP edited balloons, coffee, and smokeless tobacco frequently and Nancy77 also edited these same very divergent pages. Mrshaba (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If we assume our end is to stop abusive sockpuppetry, blocking once abuse has stopped may seem needlessly punitive; if there's a possibility of repeat behavior, or some other evidence of policy violations, that changes the equation somewhat. That said, I'm well aware I've only taken a passing glance at the situation, and that I should therefore take the considered opinions of others into account. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Mrshaba (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted some more history on Apteva, Oakwillow, Delphi234 etc. I don't know if the Oakwillow information is good enough for the checkuser but many people suspect 199 is behind Oakwillow's account and if you look at the overlapping page size argument on both the Article size page and the solar energy page there's a pattern of tendentious editing. Mrshaba (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a specific reason to check Oakwillow, here. Am I missing an abusive relation? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Block

I don't know who 'Bilbo of Andover' is. Please remove my block. I have been using wikipedia a long time and I think you should substantiate the accusation of a sock. Sandwich Eater (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like your block has already expired. Aside from the checkuser evidence, you think another user would spontaneously register and leap into that dispute, like that? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Plasticman Of Faith

Hey. I was just going to block User:Plasticman Of Faith indefinitely when I saw that you had blocked him already. I think it's quite evident that this is a vandalism only account. Therefore, would you mind expanding to indef? Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer not to block accounts indef, for vandalism, absent repeat abuse or socking issues; if you'd like to reblock, though, feel free. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay,  Done. Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean wikipedia isn't a social networking site? You had me fooled. And by the way, if I don't have an account does doing this actually do anything: 98.228.60.27 (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Me and that guy go way back! He's just kidding around. If people see my IP add. can't they send me a virus or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.60.27 (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be

I leave my talk page unprotected for a reason. Please do NOT protect it. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry -- I missed your request. No need to be so prickly about it. While we're on that subject, though, aren't you taking the efforts of others for granted? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Were I on earlier today I would've dealt with the issue. I didn't have computer access until thirty minutes ago, thus I wasn't even aware of a 4chan flood until I got the New Messages bar and saw your prot as the most recent edit. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly. But cursing at others who are trying to help you? When your expectations are so far away from community norms, it seems inevitable that there will be misunderstandings such as this. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Luna Santin, thanks for your help here [1]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Glad I could be helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Alice related

I've no idea whether you're watching the discussion you seeded for the protection you did on this article page; in case not, i posed a question concerning the warning template: i used the vandalism template as i see no other applicable template for the scenario of "Editor has made a large change to the template (adding a new section to the template); the change is reverted and the request is made of the editor to discuss any and all large changes on the discussion page. The editor ignores this request."

Note that this isn't quite edit warring, as i believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that common Wikipedia policy is that large page changes should be discussed first.

Repeated ignores of the request for discussion page conversation prior to the change seem like a fine case for warnings, but apparently 'vandalism' is not the correct template category for this behaviour, you've said. For future reference, what is the warning template category for this?

Thanks. (ps. I'll be watching this page for your replies.) Quaeler (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Template messages don't (and really can't) exist to cover all cases; when something unusual or tact-worthy comes up, I find that it's often worth typing up something on my own, or modifying an existing template. More generally, and not just looking at this one page, edit warring newbies are a very tricky case -- on the one hand, they really should be discussing a major change, but all too often we set a poor example and instead show them that reverting is the way to go. Page protection can be helpful, I suppose followed up with blocking if they still don't take a hint. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'd posit that there's no example to set in this situation (and situations of this type); if the example that the new editor needs to see is that 'major changes need discussion first', the reaction to their misstep can't be a by-example action.. no? (I guess that's just a rhetorical question... thanks for the pointer on template-v.-non-template). Quaeler (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a difficult message to get across. Once somebody's used to a wiki, the concept seems to come intuitively, but until then... – Luna Santin (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

tigger protection

can you go back and verify that you protected Tigger, please? It says you did in the history, but something's not right. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeJones (talk • contribs)

I only protected for a short time, previously; now I've given it a full 24 hours. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you have just soft-blocked 128.227.0.0/16? I realize that would block the entire University of Florida, but schools normally produce nothing but vandalism anyways. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a thought -- I hadn't realized how much of the vandalism all came from that range, though a few other addresses showed up, as well. Somewhere or other I got the impression this was a small raid (from 4chan or someplace?), and short semi is usually enough to deal with those. If problems continue, we can address those as needed. If it's localized to the one page, though, a rangeblock might be a bit much. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Hi, thanks for the link to the Admin Notice Board. I have checked the guidelines and policy on No Legal Threats but am unsure of how my comment broke that rule. I can see how someone might worry that I implied such a thing though...Anyway given some of the statements made on the section I am unwilling to post too much for fear of saying the wrong thing and "biting the dust". With all respect I am not a "wiki lawyer" and I do not try to "game the system". As you can see from my contributions I am mainly interested in expanding articles on Catholics and a few video games- I am not some sort of Crusader for G2Bambino or a Barrister or whatever...any guidance would be appreciated.Gavin (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for defending my talkpage from the 4chan morons, it hasnt gone unnoticed. The reason I dont want my talk page protected is because of moral principals. Looks like they got bored.....for now. Thanks again !   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I can somewhat see where you're coming from, on that sort of thing. I used to think I never wanted my talk page semiprotected, but I've swung around to thinking that short bursts (measured in minutes) can save a lot of people a lot of trouble, without messing up much in the way of real functionality. Still, to each their own. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Theres no need to be sorry

When you protected Promethean's page. All pages on here belong to wikipedia and you were just using common sense by applying protection, via the policy -- period. I understand different people have different views on how to deal with vandalism by placing notes on their page with what have you, so be it. You were doing your job as an admin, stick with it. Cheers Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'll keep that in mind. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tigger

Hi Luna, I've requested protection for Tigger again--as soon as your semi-protect expires, the same IP range returns. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bummer. Gave it two weeks, this time. Will try to keep an eye on this, as far as the possibility of rangeblocks, if the abuse spreads. Thanks for the update. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wallamoose

Since you did the checkuser, I believe you should look into User:76.114.195.168, because, as per his or her only contribution, he or she shows strong signs of being Wallamoose.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems obvious enough without checking. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Binky10

Thanks for CUing that train-wreck! DMacks (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't quite smell right, that one. Glad I could help out a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

You and other admins are abusing your powers. I dont like name calling but you and Theresa Knott are behaving like Big Brother who want to control wikipedia. You do NOT have sufficient proof to remove my edits on [[2]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VolcanicBasalt (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, this same user has posted to the Help Desk about you. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 21:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

VolcanicBasalt

Hi Luna,

Haven't seen you in while. Hope you're doing okay. This user asked about reporting admin abuse on the Help desk, and I told them what to do before actually looking into the case. I now know he was blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of someone else, but I'm still lacking background information. If you go all the way back to the start of the blocks, did this user do something that violated policy (if so, what was it)? Is there at least one account open he could use to share his opinion? (That would seriously cut down on sockpuppet creation). - Mgm|^(talk) 21:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I will add my input, since I was involved with the reverts. The content was added as talk, the anon cited urbandictionary as the source, kept undoung and blowing off warnings. Later that day, the content was added back by User:Nitinrai, who kept adding the content, blowing off warnings, with edit summary on one edit of "I dont need your judgement on what meet what standards". Today, User:VolcanicBasalt undid the revert which was made to remove the edit User:Nitinrai had made, restoring what User:Nitinrai had added. I rolled back and gave a custom warn about how this was being discussed on the talkpage, with an edit summary of "See talkpage, until consensus is that this should be here, don't add it", the user ignored me and undid my revert, I reverted once again and gave a L2 warning about vandalism with an addendum about how consensus must be reached first. The editor then said something on their talkpage about how I should be in soviet russia, then started posting a whole bunch of messages on my talkpage about how I was abusing my power as an admin(which I'm not). I tried to AGF, but if anyone has any feedback for anything to say about how I handled the situation, please feel free to post on my talkpage. --Terrillja _talk 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for wasting space on your talk page here, I'll discuss things further with Terrillja. -- Mgm|^(talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Of clefs, glowballs, nightmares, maids and lots of guys...

Four years of MascotGuy and counting. Dear Lord, he'll still be messing up Eloise and Atomic Betty at the end of the Obama administration at this pace. Now we have shifting IPs. Do we have us a copycat vandal or just some ding-dong who goes onto public terminals and to the homes of friends and does his unique brand of disruption? Something really stinks here, Luna. Just my two cents' worth. One thing is for sure: You are a genuine credit to this site. Don't let the idiots grind you down. Your friend, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Test those new tools!

So I've discovered that there are a number of indef IP blocks "per checkuser" and was wondering if you'd like to test your new buttons on them to see if the blocks can be reduced to some finite period of time. The list is at User:Nixeagle/Sandbox/6. Thanks in advance. MBisanz ^talk 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. Unfortunately, I bet there's a pretty good chance most or all of those are stale by now; I'll take a closer look later, if I get a chance. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you do a check user on me?

I am sure that you are fully aware of what the check user policy states, but I will place it here anyway.

Wikipedia operates a process known as Checkuser to identify some sock puppets in certain cases. Where it is unclear whether or not sock puppetry is in progress, server log information can be consulted. To comply with Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy, this is limited to a handful of users with checkuser privilege and only done in serious cases, with reasonable cause, to check if user A is the same as user B based upon some evidence. Any results will only be given in terms which comply with the privacy policy, in many cases precluding disclosure of detailed information.

Requests may be made at requests for checkuser. "Fishing" – or general trawling of users in a debate for possible sockpuppets – is not supported and requests for such checks are unlikely to be agreed to. Also, it is important to note that checkuser cannot ever confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected. It can only confirm they are connected, or that at the time of checking there is no obvious machine-identifiable evidence of connection.

User:Arcayne placed the request without ever consulting the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets page, nor asking me about it. And in fact it is based on just one, and I will repeat one comment that I made on a talk page. Not exactly the serious case per wikimedia Foundation privacy policy. This I believe was done without merit and in violation of my privacy.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What personal information have I disclosed, that you feel violates your privacy? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What reason would you have to agree with such a request?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually more concerned with the behavior of 75.49.223.52 (talk · contribs); if 75.49 and someone else were participating in the same debate, while claiming to be two distinct people, it would be a textbook violation of WP:SOCK. So far as I'm aware, there's nothing in any current policy to suggest that WP:SSP is a mandatory prerequisite for WP:RFCU. I am sorry you feel your privacy was violated, but must reiterate the question: what personal information has been revealed, that you feel violates your privacy? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I respect your concern, but it was not that anon who was checked, it was me. The policy on User Checks says:

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects.

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position).

Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory. Similarly, notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.

Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation; note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt.

Now, the policy must be worded this way for a reason. Regadless of whether or not you have released personal information, checking a user should only be done in extreme conditions. Arcayne seems to want to have a chack on anyone who disagrees with him. Now instead of helping, the matters may get worse.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"...it was not that anon who was checked, it was me" -- says who? You're inferring an awful lot from a simple {{unrelated}} tag, as far as I can tell. I see that you're quoting policy, yes, but I'm still not clear on what exact violation you're seeing, here? As far Arcayne's motives, I'm not seeing anything to support that allegation; care to back that up with some evidence? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh so you checked the anon, whose IP is already available, and not mine? Did you see reason a valid reason to do so, based on just one edit? Or could it be that Arcayne is just using this to further flame the argument? You have been given the right to check users, but you should first determine whether or not there is a valid reason first, before going through with it.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm running a few minutes late for a meeting, so may find it difficult to reply in the near future, just fyi. You don't seem to understand how the tool works, but that really shouldn't surprise me, since most people haven't used it: in addition to getting a user's IP addresses, it can also list edits/users from a given IP. It just so happens you didn't turn up when I checked 75.49. Did I think Arcayne's request would justify checking every user at the page? No. Would I check any random set of users Arcayne asked me to? No, of course not. Did I think circumstances warranted a quick peek under the hood to check for any obvious abuses, and to put to rest any temptation to accuse everyone of socking around? Yes. So that's what I did. I checked, just as the title implies. Now, at this point you've explained no specific way in which I've released personal information to violate your or anyone's privacy -- nor, as far as I can tell, violated any standing policy as written -- and have provided no evidence supporting your twice-made assertion that the request was made in bad faith (which I suppose is irrelevant, anyway, since I don't too much give a hoot who made it to begin with). The check's been run, brief as my little peek was. I don't have any current plans to run more, nor can I un-run a check that's already been done. I'm aware that you're upset, have apologized for any unintended slight, and will bear the experience in mind for future reference. What more do you think I can do, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. Although, as far as I know, no personal information was released, I see your point on just checking to find out. We just can't let any upset editor ask for and be granted a chack user request based on one edit. Thanks again and enjoy your evening.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: IP

Hey! Yeah, I think something was missed... by me... I thought this was malicious but Glorio is the one at fault. I'll go apologize. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for catching my mistake! I've indef-blocked User:Gloriothebould for constant BLP violations. Anyway, thanks again! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I stole your sheep. I love the gray! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you try to edit my userpage it greets you. :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

who are you

you know what business is yours. clayworth is a lousy editor. he edits without anyones elses concerns i stated my business with him but he deleted it all from his talk page. he contradicts himself there are way too many bullies and people who want to run this site. i said my peace i will leave him alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.44.28 (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

he also the one saying and calling me annoying, i have pointless and obscene statements. so thats ok to irritate me like that. if you read the wikipeadia rules that is against the rules also. i was making a point and i was specific about my problem with him. he a very bad editor and i would like to know how he became an admistrator here.  

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.44.28 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Californiawine

Please forgive my foolishness. I love wikipedia and didn't know what i was doing. I understand now and would like some help. I intend to ask questions and seek the help of administrators out here to establish a page that I would like to have for my trademarked brand. Please forgive my terrible error. I will seek only to do the right thing from now on out here on wiki and when in doubt, I will ask questions. Californiawine (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)