User talk:Luna Santin/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User	Talk	Contribs	My Sandbox	Improve Me!

			This is my talk archive. I periodically move conversations here, to reduce clutter on my main talk page. If you'd like to continue or reference a conversation that's been archived, feel free to copy it into my talk or link to it, but please don't otherwise edit or remove it from this archive. Please don't leave messages for me, here, I can't guarantee I'll read them in a timely manner. Instead, use my main talk page. Thank you.
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 1 « 17 ‹ Archive 18 › 19 » 24

Why? Where was copyvio?

Hi Luna, I was just wondering why my unterseeboot articles were deleted a few minutes ago. Where was the copyvio? Many others have viewed the page and never commented on it. Please answer as soon as you can. Thank you. Anonymous Dissident 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spirit Seekers Paranormal Investigation Research & Intervention Team

Reliable sources of notability for the Spirit Seekers Paranormal Investigation Research & Intervention Team:

Featured in: Alan Brown's latest book: "Ghost Hunters of the South." "Haunted Nights" Magazine. The Fall 2005 Issue of "Spirit Quest Ezine." The January 12, 2007 Issue of the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette."

Co-Founder, Alan L. "Buz" Lowe is a contributing author in the recently published book: "Ghostly Tales From America's Jails"; and on "About.com:Paranormal."

Photos by The Spirit Seekers Paranormal Investigation Research & Intervention Team are featured in the book: "Famous Haunted Spots," currently in production.

The Team will be featured in an upcoming episode of "A Haunting" on The Discovery Channel. The episode will focus on a cleansing performed at a private residence. Produced by New Dominion Studios in Suffolk, Virginia, the episode (already filmed) is scheduled to air in September, 2007.

In addition, the Team has appeared on KARK Channel 4 Television's Special Series, "Did You Know?"; and are regular guests on KARN Talk Radio.

GhostHunterExtraordinaire Spirit Seeker 02:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I have a question: If an editer reverted a page 4 times but not in 24 hrs, what can I do to stop him or maybe report him? Please reply on my talk page, thanks.--Jerrypp772000 02:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So so sorry

I am sorry about my mistake. Yes it was intended for support. Thank you for your kind help. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 06:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Regarding the article After Apple-Picking, I understand why you removed the speedy deletion tag (I didn't realize that Frost was already public domain), but I was wondering if it was appropriate to have an article that consisted of nothing more than the poem? janejellyroll 07:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw that you placed a prod on the article. janejellyroll 07:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the Smile. Letstalk 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AIV report

Thanks for your help and your prompt action in notifying WP:RFO. I see they've already obliterated the change from the article history. Excellent, the system works! Regards, Zaian 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath editprotected tag

The edit request was posted in the edit summary. Sorry, I guess I should have put it in the body of the discussion next to the tag. The protected version is a version recognized as repeated vandalism by Senior Hamsacharya (talk • contribs) by several admins/bots/editors unaffiliated with editing the page. Please see the very recent article history to see that this is true. Diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] In other words, this is not an edit war, its an issue of repeated vandalism by the same person. Hamsacharya dan 22:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for removing the vandalism from my User and Talk pages. I really appreciate it. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

69.221.12.13

Oh, just block him already. Isn't the fact that he's made the same edit eleven times enough? – Qxz 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Prior edit to Riverside, California

The user just prior to you blanked a section. I do not want to override your edit as I a free-lance editor. Cheers, Ronbo76 05:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The point about violence and gangs has been there a while. Plus the section about death stats too. It seems to be a bone of contest in several WP:CAL articles. Overzealous readers want their cities to read vanilla even though the truth may hurt. I hate seeing some truths written about places I lived or even jobs I had but history has written the verdict and Wikipedia is recording it.

I gathered by your removal of the protected tag, you are higher up in the food chain than I. That's why I did not want to reverse you. Thanks, Ronbo76 05:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the edit by user:BlankVerse is one of the respected editors of our WP:CAL project. If he leaves something in or makes an edit, it's almost carved in stone. Ronbo76 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Plus, I started a talk page about the edit war. Hopefully that will put a stop to it or give our WP:CAL editors a firm leg to stand on. Ronbo76 05:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Spirit Seekers Paranormal Investigation Research & Intervention Team

Please reconsider the entry of Spirit Seekers Paranormal Investigation Research & Intervention Team, based on the following sources:

Reliable sources of notability for the Spirit Seekers Paranormal Investigation Research & Intervention Team:

Featured in: Alan Brown's latest book: "Ghost Hunters of the South." "Haunted Nights" Magazine. The Fall 2005 Issue of "Spirit Quest Ezine." The January 12, 2007 Issue of the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette."

Co-Founder, Alan L. "Buz" Lowe is a contributing author in the recently published book: "Ghostly Tales From America's Jails"; and on "About.com:Paranormal."

Photos by The Spirit Seekers Paranormal Investigation Research & Intervention Team are featured in the book: "Famous Haunted Spots," currently in production.

The Team will be featured in an upcoming episode of "A Haunting" on The Discovery Channel. The episode will focus on a cleansing performed at a private residence. Produced by New Dominion Studios in Suffolk, Virginia, the episode (already filmed) is scheduled to air in September, 2007.

In addition, the Team has appeared on KARK Channel 4 Television's Special Series, "Did You Know?"; and are regular guests on KARN Talk Radio.

Thank you- GhostHunterExtraordinaireSpirit Seeker 05:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

help with persistent NPOV edits

I wonder if you could help me. I find myself caught up in a discussion with an anonymous contributor who appears to have a strong and narrow agenda. I have asked this person to discuss changes to this page - History of IBM - before making more changes. This person has flatly refused.

Could you take a look at the edit history for the page in question, and the Discussion page for that page, and the history of edits made by the anonymous user to that page and advise me on how to proceed? Thanks. Paul 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: another user has opened a case for mediation, see: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-25_History_of_IBM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lpgeffen (talk • contribs) 01:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Hello Luna. Hope you're having a good afternoon

I wanted to award you this Barnstar of Diligence for your tireless and courteous assistance on Unblock-en-l, but I notice that you've already received so many that you don't want any more! Thanks for your help. Dino 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking of Dino

Hi Luna,

Are you aware that you helped unblock a user, Dino, who claimed that he contacted the author of a particularly contentious article, and then claimed that this author said that he never wrote said article here (when he did write the article - and it's even archived on his website!) - and based on this info, a Wiki Foundation employee (who is not an especially active editor) User:Carolyn-WMF edited a contested article and removed critical material based on these false claims by Dino? proof here I look forward to a complete investigation of this matter, and find the utter unresponsiveness of this WMF employee and another Foundation member, Danny Wool, when questioned about this matter by two Admins and two editors more than a little troubling. Fairness & Accuracy For All

User:Maleabroad

The user that you blocked, Maleabroad seems to have registered a different account: Brownguy20 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). I mentioned it at AN/I but I'm not sure how often people go back to check that. I was wondering if you could take a look and see if it is indeed Maleabroad evading his block, or an innocent user that I haven't assumed enough good faith towards? Thanks, Orpheus 23:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

History Portal

The pest needs putting down I would say....SatuSuro 11:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User 82.23.36.174 is at it again

This user (User:82.23.36.174) who you previously temporarily blocked last fall for vandalism is at it again. (see his/her talk page) - I removed the vandalism I spotted, which the user did a few days ago, noted it on the user's talk page, and reported him/her on the Administrators noticeboard. He received a final warning again before this recent act of vandalism, so I think he should be permanently blocked, if that is possible given that it's an anonymous IP address-identified user...What do you think?NYDCSP 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This link (User:82.23.36.174) is now active. A userpage has been created that may help to warn other patrollers about this account. You may want to create more user pages with this template for other IP addresses that have been used only for vandalism. Paul 19:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Username Change.

Luna Santin, there is a new User who would like to change her Username. She wants to change it from Sashajackson to Sasha Jackson. I have been in E-mail contact with this User, as on her Userpage it said about her being an upcoming actress. She said something about her account going to expire on the 31st of this month. I have confirmed that this User is who she says she is and not an imposter. I visited her website, E-mailed her, and confirmed who this User is. Sasha Jackson doesn't have enough Wikipedia experience to know how to request a Username change. Is there anything you can do to change her name or not? If not, she plans to create a new account called Sasha Jackson. She is not interested in sockpuppetry, she just wants her Username to be Sasha Jackson. Acalamari 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'll tell her this then. However, I just hope other Users don't block her new account tsimply because it's similar to Sashajackson. After all, she is a good-intentioned new User. Acalamari 21:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your advice and support. Acalamari 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Free Practice Account Forex Trading - Top Ranked Sites"

(200.142.126.126, 82.207.122.13, 203.160.1.44 )

The IPs/spammers you just blocked all seem to be the same user, based on the edit summaries, doesn't that imply open proxies/longer blocks?--172.152.30.67 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rootology

You may recall your unblock of Miltopia - you wrote at my request that his unblock was "remaining unblocked will rely on staying as far away from MONGO as possible." I suggest that Miltopia's vigorous defence of Rootology, who was banned (not blocked, banned) by Arbcom for harassing MONGO and myself is verging on a violation of this prohibition. I would ask that you review User:WWest and User:Desnm, and Miltopia's edits here and here and here. I suggest that you inform Miltopia that he is to stop defending individuals accused of being Rootology socks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've made an RFCU so they can be confirmed/cleared of being sockpuppets. I'm not defending them if it's clear they are rootology. I'm not an idiot, after all. Milto LOL pia 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to point out that a checkuser can't "clear" accounts of being sockpuppets, as it's perfectly possible for people to edit from different IPs. Musical Linguist 21:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:66.192.94.185 block

Hi, I was adding links using the above IP address and you blocked me. I did not consider them to be spam and in fact wanted to share the wealth of information available at replacementdocs with the many users of Wikipedia. I see no difference between the links I was adding and many of the other resource sites listed under External Links of those classic computer/console articles.

I respectfully ask that you unblock the IP address and restore the edits that I made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casimps1 (talk • contribs) 26 January 2007.

thanks

just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandal on my talk page. the guy keeps reverting to this funny but annoying vandalization of the Vancouver, WA page about aliens invading. since I'm the one who keeps thwarting him, he now hates me. thanks again luna satin VanTucky 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture Question.

I have a question about pictures on Userpages. I have seen Users place pictures from Wikipedia on their Userpages. If a picture on Wikipedia has been confirmed to be copyrighted, but has been allowed for use on Wikipedia, can Users use that picture on their own Userpages? For example, if I wanted to, could I put this picture of the Enterprise-E on my Userpage if the picture was allowed to be on Wikipedia? I'm just asking, in case other Users might be breaking a rule I don't know about. Acalamari 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't actually going to add any pictures. I was just asking because I've seen Users add pictures from Wikipedia to their Userpages. My own Userpage is fine enough with text and a few Userboxes. Acalamari 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

hi

Hi Luna,

I am a new user on Wiki. I might need some help from time to time. And guidance if I am doing something wrong. Just wanted to say hi. Simply amazed by the no. of awards you have! :)

- Abhinav (User:Bhatele)

Thank You For Starbucks Restoration

Greetings ....

Thanks for putting the Starbucks Coffee page back in order. At least the perp didn't put up anything raunchy or leave a link to some obscene internet site .

I've been playing policeman too. Somebody added "a complaint" on a sports page I frequently visit, and there was a reference link which led to a no-holds-barred (especially the language) bulletin board. I did my Good Wikipedian part and fixed it.

Thanx-A-Lot and Enjoy, Frank Fgf2007 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Achaea Article Deletion Tag Removal

May I wonder on what basis you've removed the tag for deletion on the article Achaea (MUD)? The debate by no means achieved the state when the participants have agreed to a solution, nor was the majority for keeping the article. In fact, most arguments for KEEP were based on the fact that the game has won awards, for which neither of the participants has found a proof or evidence of any sort!

The later arguments were mainly stating that it's a "great game" from a notable company (consisting of a approx. of 10 employees) and thus has to be kept. Now with all due respects, this does not fall under our notablity policy. The statement that it is a "the most popular MUD" is also false, as you can see by checking the actual webpage given. Aardwolf is the most popular MUD, while Achaea ranks from place 2 to 3. Quite a number of people agreed for keep have stated that they are not familiar with the MUD, falling into the "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar. " category.

What disturbs me is that you didn't add a single comment on the deletion rejection procedure, except tending towards keep, and simply decided to reject the deletion. May I now wonder how your decision, which clearly goes against the opinions of 80% of the posters, is objective? Perhaps I'd be wise to actually read the argument instead of calculating the keep/delete ration, as this is not a vote. Even more so, the article does not need to improve. The question was notablity, not the quality of the article!

I strongly recommend you to revert the page back to the initial state, wait for the end of the concensus and read before clicking. Very poor perfomance.

84.163.92.250 01:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A few responses:

1. AfD discussions are generally left open for five days -- AfD itself is backlogged, currently, and this particular discussion was open for seven, two more than is regular practice.
2. A debate which reaches no consensus (another conclusion I considered) will default to keep.
3. AfD (indeed, hardly any discussion on the wiki) is not a vote. The number of editors voting for any particular result is useful only as a partial gauge -- far more important are the individual issues each voice raises, and the strength of those points, especially as regards Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
4. Even if we were to count votes, the total would come to 7 keeps and 5 deletes. The majority of users favored keeping the article.
5. Closing admins aren't supposed to comment on the discussion -- doing so violates our neutrality and poses a conflict of interest. Far from participating in the discussion, we're only supposed to act on policy, guideline, and community consensus.

If you disagree with my closing of the discussion, you're more than welcome to make a request at deletion review, or to wait awhile and begin a second discussion, as you like. Luna Santin 01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

1.) My statement: "Perhaps I'd be wise to actually read the argument instead of calculating the keep/delete ration, as this is not a vote." Your reply: "AfD (indeed, hardly any discussion on the wiki) is not a vote." Conclusion: Yes, thank you for repeating after me. Well done.

2.) My statement: "In fact, most arguments for KEEP were based on the fact that the game has won awards, for which neither of the participants has found a proof or evidence of any sort!" Your reply: "Even if we were to count votes, the total would come to 7 keeps and 5 deletes. The majority of users favored keeping the article." Conclusion: Once again, thank you for reading and counting.

3.) Your statement: "Far from participating in the discussion, we're only supposed to act on policy, guideline, and community consensus." My reply: "Ahm... Policy and guidelines tell you to follow the concensus. The consensus was a Delete, apart from statements like "good game", "keep, but I know nothing about it" and "it won awards"(which it hasn't, for more read the logs)." Conculusion: The administrators have some secret policy they follow, which the normal mortals are not allowed to read.

Now to be completely honest with you, how can a sane person with an objective view on the matter miss all of those tiny moments before judging anything? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.163.92.250 (talk) 27 January 2007

Interesting -- a moment ago, you said 80% of posters voted to delete, and now it seems you've forgotten saying that, instead choosing to argue from the most arrogant position possible. Surely someone who claims to have an intimate understanding of general practice and policy would be fully aware of the means by which they could sign their posts. As much as I try to be open with discussion, it seems to me that you're trying to bait me. With that in mind, feel free to make that request at deletion review and see what the community at large thinks of my action. Luna Santin 03:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I say! I needn't have looked at your contributions... From seeing you while RC patrolling alone, I can tell that you're a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. Keep up the good work! Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 03:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Note on my talk: Can someone please update this list? WikiMan53 T/C e@ edits 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand, the program only recognizes edits to the userlist if they're made by one of the VandalProof moderators -- I'll see if I can get one of them to take a look. Luna Santin 04:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Do you know when someone will come? Please respond on my talk. WikiMan53 T/C e@ edits 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? WikiMan53 T/C e@ edits 04:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rocky Balboa

I don't really care that you blocked me, the changes I made were righteous. You guys have turned that page into some big fan page with a lot of babbling and useless content. It isnt objective and impartial at all. Something needs to be done, if you have the power, why dont you try to make a difference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.221.12.13 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi

I think the recent edits by user User:Sean mc sean need checking, I thought you might like to have look? SatuSuro 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah came across it from the Napoloeon Dynamite afd issue - and figure that level of behaviour needs checking one way or other... Thanks SatuSuro 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In view of that users ed history wouldnt be suprised if another block will come up again soon after... looks like good faith left in tatters from that little sunshines keyboard... but I wont place any bets...SatuSuro 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanlove

I suspect that User:Taiwanlove is a sock puppet of User:Nationalist, can you find that out? Because Nationalist was having an argument, and this new user came supporting Nationalist. I found that weird.--Jerrypp772000 01:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: UberCon

What gives you the right to delete my page! One it is NOT blatant advertisment. the page wasn't even finished. It was simply meant to give information about a relativly successful gaming convention. Two, if you've got beef with conventions then you better delete the GenCon and San Diego Comic Con pages as well, if you haven't already. Ya jerk! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.121.64.255 (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Your telltale use of the word "we" indicates to me that your purpose here seems to be self-promotion; that's generally frowned upon, unfortunately. Editors are welcome to contribute, but are discouraged from writing about themselves or groups they're involved with (see WP:AUTO and WP:COI), unless they can do so while citing reliable sources and can satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines while doing so. Luna Santin 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all done, shockingly

It seems accounts have fallen though the net. As a test I was checking the logs of the users and came across this, which contains the creation of Seasonsgreetings6 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) which is the first one I've seen so far. There could be many more and I'm going to keep looking. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And just as I posted this StinkBombGoneBad (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). –– Lid^(Talk) 07:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a second CU should be conducted on these second tier accounts, considering the sheer number of socks that these were even missing from the first fifty is startling. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks It's good to have a protected page will kinda of miss the vandalizations made you feel like you were getting things done. Any way thanks Add yet another one to the huge list of things I owe you--St.daniel 12:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A block of yours

Hi, could you see what I wrote on User talk:Jpgordon#Nwwaew vs Nwweaw, about a block appeal in a recent checkuser case? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for handling it. Good to see that has been cleared up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A Vandalism Only Account.

A user named Maddiedaniels seems to only vandalize. Recently, they went and added a load of information to Prussian Blue (duo) that violated NPOV. Also, this user has created nonsense pages which have been deleted. I think this user should be blocked, but I couldn't report them to AIV because the user was last given a warning a few months ago. Even so, this user only seems to vandalize or violate NPOV. Acalamari 02:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		In appreciation for your efforts to defend Wikipedia from vandalism. MONGO 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well-deserved. Keep up the good work, Luna, here and at unblock. Antandrus (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Miradu

You recently blocked Miradu (talk • contribs), I have a couple of gripes with this.

The first and foremost was with the way the vandal was blocked. They were blocked after two incidents of vandalism and without being given any warnings. Granted, they only had four edits, but only two of them were vandalism, and neither was what I would term severe vandalism. I'm deeply concerned that you treated this user so harshly, because you bit a newbie. Yes they were out of line adding junk to Talk:Reality, but they are still a newbie and deserve some soft handling and at least one warning before blocking.

The second and more minor gripe is that in doing so you created an autoblock that affected all of Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, that IP is now marked as shared, but please, be careful when you block. --Matthew 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so upset about the autoblock as about the fact users are getting blocked without any warnings. I understand the autoblock is not directly due to your actions. It's just really distasteful that we're willing to drop our standards for fighting vandalism just because they're a bunch of them at once. If nothing else, every vandal needs to be warned once in their lifetime with bv or test4, otherwise we're just biting newbies. The article got protected, the horde could only do but so much. --Matthew 07:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Truthiness

Hi, you fully protected this article in response to vandalism. Would it be alright if this was changed to semi-protection as all the vandalism came from IPs, I can't see a need to fully protect at this time. Thanks. Trebor 07:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I was just a bit surprised to see full protection straight away. Trebor 15:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was in a bit of a rush this morning, and didn't notice another Colbert thing had started, so excuse my overly-hasty first comment. Regards. Trebor 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Crazy IPs

I realize that you are an active Admin right now. I just wanna warn you of the following IPs who've been crazy vandalizing:

• User:121.44.130.155
• User:204.111.250.221
• User:71.102.102.253
• User:210.176.49.217
• User:66.169.236.129
• User:202.162.48.126

Thanks. --JDitto 08:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request for unblock

Thanks for the unblock. Hey, if this takes out some vandal socks and sleepers, its worth being blocked for a little while!

BTW: the school shared IPs you probably see me on (which I edit from frequency) are 208.108.145.3-4 and 11-12. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (Review me!) 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

<../upload/shared/f/f2/WikipediaSignpostHead.png" alt="The Wikipedia Signpost" width="500" height="69" longdesc="../../../w/i/k/Image%7EWikipediaSignpostHead.png_d9a0.html" /> Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

David Yeagley

Hi, it seems the "protect" of David Yeagley is still warranted (witness continued vandalism at regular intervals since your "unprotect"), unless it's better to block the IPs. They all appear to originate in the same location. Thanks again for your help. Badagnani 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

SEGA

Hello there! I was hoping you could help me with something, or point me in the right direction. You recently did some of the username blocking due to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA. I have recently put three more there because of attacks on talk pages. As evidenced on my talk page at User talk:Moeron#I've got to hand it to you, this user admits that a ban will not stop him. Is my only solution to keep placing these (possible) puppets to that RFC page? Is the IP range blockable? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Maleabroad

You blocked him and he is back as User:Geomatician what do we do ? He does the same edits and same disruptions. For your review RaveenS 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of the same user User:PeaceNow86 RaveenS 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Sure, he's going to keep on bothering me anyway thanks. Nareklm 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now he's ips are changing, 216.175.82.104 Nareklm 00:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bismuth vandalism

WOuld work better if instead of protecting the article, you'd just block IP 63.3.16.129 since that's where all the vandalism is coming from. SBHarris 02:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's important if all the vandalism is coming from one or two sites. You identified one of them (70.146.21.130). But you missed the other. Blocking them both solves the problem. SBHarris 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Gracias! That should fix it. SBHarris 02:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Catching that Sneaky Page Move

Thank you Luna for catching that sneaky page move :). I am currently heavily distracted with my monobook, I'm lacking all of Lupin's rollback links for some reason. I may crack open my old VandalProof but that program (scratch that, its also down for the count) has also been bugging like crazy for me at the moment as well. Worse comes to worse, there is always the good old Undo button.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Untitled message

What does the copyvio thing you put in when you erased my addition to the Insanity defense page mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stepupthefun (talk • contribs) 1 February 2007.

It was part of a research paper I wrote in college. I'll make sure to note where things come from next time. Thanks for the advice. Stepupthefun 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the sources I got my information from in the reference section, in case some of what I added is kept. Stepupthefun 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)