User talk:Luna Santin/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

WP:BLP

The way it works is that BLP forbids inserting material (ie, text) into Wikipedia that is controversial which is unsourced or poorly sourced. It doesn't apply to sources. However, unreliable sources should be removed from articles. Some sources are categorically unreliable (ie, blogs). Others are generally reliable, but not always (ie, mainstream newspapers), others are generally considered reliable (ie, peer reviewed articles published by professionals in highly esteemed journals). Each source must be discussed on a case-by-case basis. For some topics, newspapers are the only reliable sources that exist at all discussing the topic in question (consider, for example, Les Pages Jèrriaises), and absolutely cannot be dismissed out of hand. The Jade Knight 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous user who is contending his block on the basis of WP:BLP, doesn't seem to understand this. He/she thinks that WP:BLP means that sources can be removed at will if they themselves are poorly sourced (newspaper articles are never well-sourced) if they are disagreeable to an individual, and that no discussion should take place whatsoever over the removal of said sources. Evidently, this anonymous user finds something objectionable in the text of the source itself (and is trying to prevent people from accessing said source), not in the Wikipedia article which references it. The Jade Knight 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, and I appreciate your concern. For the time being, I'm just trying to get their side of the story, see if there was some specific objection or if BLP was a red herring. If another administrator reviews the block, in the meantime, I have no objection. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert Conflict

Yep, revert conflict. WP is being slow at the moment! Thanks for checking, Hawker Typhoon 02:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

NP, stay safe! Hawker Typhoon 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alot

Thanks alot luna, no sandwiches for you....

P

--CableModem^_^ 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oi, whered the : in :P go. --CableModem^_^ 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blargh. Let's hope that teaches me a lesson. IP looked close to another one of the several that's been trolling around, tonight, and I was too hasty. My mistake. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, its all good. Nothing like a little "HOLY CARP YOU'VE BEEN BLOCKED!" action to make things interesting. =D --CableModem^_^ 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And that was a DAMN fast block! --CableModem^_^ 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but suppose it's somebody who doesn't know how to get in touch with me, quickly. ~_~ I shouldn't be so jumpy. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Better ease up on the caffine there Luna ---CableModem^_^ 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can quit any time I want. >:( – Luna Santin (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. Have you tried Caffineaholics Anon? >:D --CableModem^_^ 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=300-764 I need me one of those. 15" and 1000W! Daym! --CableModem^_^ 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, edited my signature. --CableModem^^ 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel kinda odd to see you watching me edit this. ---23:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to my user page

Thank you so much for reverting vandalism to my userpage. It is becoming more frequent as I do RC patrol... Anyways, thank you. I very much appreciate it, so here is a cookie for you as a little thank you. You are a great editor! Thanks, Neranei ^T/C 05:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks. :) Glad to be of any service. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome... please, please, please keep up the excellent vandal-fighting work! :) Cheers, Neranei ^T/C 06:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read talk page --67.71.87.238 09:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the recent IP block party

I don't know about the other guys, but I got a bit bored at 5:23 a.m. in the morning (shrug) Pandacomics 09:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm done now, but I want to make a point here. The reason I was reverting his edits was to preserve the warnings on his page. The reason it took so long to block him was that he would blank his page, vanadalize, then get a fresh warning on his page. It would never be a final warning and it looked like he was getting an endless supply of second-chances. Yes, I know there's a record on the "edit history", but it didn't seem like it was being checked. Finally, the user was blocked... not with any announcement, of course, so when he kept blanking his page, I thought the admins had just ignored the intervention request. Then, I realized "blocking" in this case meant he could keep editing his page and putting nonsense all over it. Once again, yes it was a dumb edit war, but I wanted to let you know what it was about. -- VegitaU 09:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's been many long, long discussions over whether IP talk pages are of any particular importance -- I'm generally of the opinion that they're not, especially once the user's been blocked, but if you weren't aware they were blocked, that changes things a bit. I gather you reported them to WP:AIV; when the helperbot removes an item, it should say why in its edit summary (usually because the reported user has been blocked). – Luna Santin (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Some people are just so immature. (They couldn't hack that I spotted their vandalism on an article.) Anyway, thanks heaps! — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 10:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, yep. :) Glad to help out. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Lights 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! Cheers, Lights 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

=) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

/me smiles grins at you. --CableModem^^ 10:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

=( – Luna Santin (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you block me?

Why exactly did you consider me a troll a little while back? I guess... I guess you hate me, don't you? Oh well. <:(

At the time, my talk page was being spammed by several IP addresses; perhaps you got caught up in that. Beyond that, while I do welcome discussion, Wikipedia's talk pages in particular should generally be used toward their stated purpose of allowing us all to coordinate our work on the project. If you'd like a chatroom, you could see WP:IRC. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry I bothered you. By the way, I started an account of my own. Just got tired of the vandalism, you know? Decided I'd help Wikipedia grow as a site. I'll know for next time, though.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. :) I'll drop off a welcome note in a minute, feel free to let me know if you have any questions. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated! LOZ: OOT 01:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

LOZ: OOT 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 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!

Just used the above template and signed it, if that's OK. I'll put it on my User Page. Just wondering if there's anything wrong with that.

Oh. Looks like I'll need to edit my signature. lol

That's better. LOZ: OOT 03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen my userpage? LOZ: OOT 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC

Irishguy socks

All three of the contributions of 71.193.185.110 (talk · contribs) are to revert separate Irishguy socks. It seems a bit fishy... or I could be paranoid. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Worth keeping an eye on, probably. Thanks for pointing it out. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fighting the socks. :) IrishGuy ^talk 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You betcha. ;) Somebody has a bit too much time on their hands (besides me, I mean, heh). – Luna Santin (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Socks are for your feet, not for wikipedia! --CableModem^^ 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarading Firefox

Your browser told me to tell you not to open 100 tabs again. Or else. --CableModem^^ 06:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing. I open 200 tabs on mine. LOZ: OOT 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Crazy dude. --CableModem^^ 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

recent saved post

hi there. i saved the following post last night but don't see it included yet. what did i do wrong?

Stefan Schaefer (born August 17, 1971) is an American writer, director and producer of independent films. He was born in Boston, spent his childhood in Sussex, England and his adolescent years in Detroit and New York. He studied acting and political theory at Skidmore College and Wesleyan University, from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. Following a year and a half in Germany - where he studied as a Fulbright Scholar and worked as a journalist - he returned to New York and co-founded the producton company Cicala Filmworks. Confess, his debut feature film, premiered at the 2005 Hamptons International Film Festival, where Stefan won the Best Screenwriter award. The political thriller stars Eugene Byrd, Ali Larter, Melissa Leo, William Sadler and Glenn Fitzgerald. The film is distributed by New Films International and MTI. In 2006 he directed and produced the one-hour television documentary Contested Streets, which looks at what New York can learn from London, Paris and Copenhagen in terms of organizing its streets and public spaces. Produced together with Transportation Alternatives and Lime Wire founder Mark Gorton, the film screened widely at international environmental film festivals and on Free SpeechTV. In 2007 he wrote, co-directed and produced Arranged, his second feature film, starring Zoe Lister-Jones, Francis Benhamou, Marcia Jean Kurtz, John Rothman, Mimi Lieber and Daniel London. The film premiered at the 2007 South by Southwest Film Festival, won top prizes at the Berkshire International Film Festival and The Brooklyn International Film Festival, and was picked up for distribution by New York-based Film Movement. He also collaborated as a writer, actor and co-producer on the film The Higher Force, directed by Icelandic filmmaker Olaf de Fleur Johannesson and starring Michael Imperioli. The film shot in Reykjavik, Iceland in April and May 2007. Stefan lives in Brooklyn with his wife and two children, and serves on the Board of the Brooklyn Waldorf School.

External Links

Stefan C. Schaefer imdb entry
Cicala Filmworks
Confess
Contested Streets
Arranged
Poppoli Pictures

Looks like you saved it to Wikipedia:Introduction -- to make your own article, see Wikipedia:Your first article. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud

Can you plese look into the matter of LAz17. I believe this user has numerous sockuppets and is using them to disrupt several Wikipedian articles. I also believe he is trying to set-up the voting process for this category deletion discussion here. He already voted two times as can be seen on the examples I posted on that very page. Other examples of similar disruptions can be found on RfCU ([1]). It is my opinion that he voted at least two or three times besides the proven double vote he issue already before, latest being cast by Benkovac, one of his sockupuppets he used earlier for disruption and edit warring. Thanks. --No.13 18:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

loloool

Some people say that you should WP:AWW Nevermind. --CableModem^^ 03:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you beat me to a few reverts where I have already warned the user, do yuo have that problem when it says your edit contains new external links and you have to type the code in? Thats what keeps slowing me down. Regards; Ds.mt 09:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty new feature, I joined the wiki before it was implemented. :p I knew it applied to logged out users, but I wasn't aware anyone else would be affected. If I had to guess, it'll probably go away once your account ages past a few days, to what's usually called the "autoconfirmed threshold" -- this is the same point where you'll gain the ability to edit semi-protected pages, or change page titles. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the other thing I forgot to mention, thanks for helping to keep the wiki neat and clean! :) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Awww, thank you! Ds.mt 11:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

re: username blocking

I saw the name: JON KENNEDY IS A RACIST pop up as created, and went to report it, but saw you'd blocked it about 10 changes later. That was really kinda fast -- nice work! Gscshoyru 11:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. :) I sometimes watch the new users feed on IRC, which I believe is how I ran across this one. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 31	30 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium	Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry	WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news	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 00:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

I don't suppose that you have the clout to protect Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, do you? That could put an end to all this foolishness!

What I want to know is why today's featured article isn't protected in the first place!

Ok thanks! IamMarkBlake 07:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that was today's FA. That'd explain a lot. ;) Typically they aren't protected except in dire circumstances (WP:NOPRO is the essay, I think), but I'll try to keep an eye on things. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just assumed they were always protected while they're the FA. Alright, well, thanks for your help! IamMarkBlake 08:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and thank you for your concern. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to change the subject or anything, but would you mind looking at my first attempt at an article, Trinity Mother Frances Health System, and telling me how I'm doing so far? It is new, and doesn't have a whole lot of information, but I would really appreciate it! IamMarkBlake 08:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, that's looking very good, much better than I remember my first few article attempts being. I notice it's lacking categories, I'll see if I can find the right sorts to add (will either start from a hospital I know of, or start browsing Category:Hospitals and the like until I figure out where it should go, probably). – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks! I'm going to keep working with it and see what I can accomplish. And help or advice you could offer is greatly appreciated! - IamMarkBlake 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

His excellency

He is a sock of User:His excellency, in my opinion. Look into it and reach your own conclusion. I will be in and out, so if you decide the block is unjustified, feel free to unblock. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I should've seen the link you left. Will have a look. I'm familiar with that name, but I don't think I've ever dealt with that one directly. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See it's been reviewed by people more familiar with the subject. Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

lol. just kidding. courtney van horn is a very famous dancer in the modesto area... thjats why i tried to make an article about her

Thanks

A big thank you for noticing today's vandalism on the article about the Danish monarch. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. :) I try to make it a habit to revert pagemove vandals, in particular. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! It was certainly some of the stranger vandalism to get put on there. IronGargoyle 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You betcha, glad to be of service. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Gimme a chance to revert!--Hirohisat Talk 05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah! ;) We'll see, I may take a break soonish. Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia neat and free of vandalism, too. Every bit counts. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Everywhere a page is blanked or a troll attacks, You have responded. And for that, I commend you. LOZ: OOT 05:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Luna, do you like me at all? Do you wish I would leave you alone? LOZ: OOT 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither; I just don't know you particularly well, and my general on-wiki actions don't lead us to interact very often. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, anyways, you certainly deserve this barnstar. You go above and beyond thye call of duty just for the prevention of vandalism. Thank you. LOZ: OOT 07:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock review of 71.112.235.59 (talk · contribs)

Darn it, Jaranda beat me to blocking that vandal by a fraction of a second and you beat me to denying the unblock review. You spoiled my fun. ;) Here I was thinking it would only be fitting to block them and then when I missed that opportunity, it would be fitting to deny the unblock. Oh, well. ;) -- Gogo Dodo 06:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I'm sure your decline would have been much more professional and becoming for an administrator. :p *hide* – Luna Santin (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I did have something different ready to go, but I rather like yours. Much more fitting. Made me laugh. =D -- Gogo Dodo 06:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I was laughing so hard there, I could barely type for a minute. Great decline. :) --Elonka 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Remus Lupin

"You didn't write my article right, I hate you"? Nice. Sometimes it's fun deleting nonsense like that, isn't it? Beemer69 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if fun is the word I'd use, but I must be getting some enjoyment or I wouldn't be doing it. That was one of those rare amusing tidbits, though, yes. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been Smiled upon

NeutralHomer ^T:C 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.

Thanks, and back atcha. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the name calling but Baycore's been removing small chunks of info from pages for awhile, which I've just identified as vandalism, please to be doing something to stop him? ImmortalKaine 08:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 32	6 August 2007	About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter	About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays	WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones	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 09:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

English Channel.

Thanks Luna for your quick solution to yesterday's problem. I don't even know how it happened as I normally only edit sections. JRPG 09:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. :) It's not the sort of thing that comes up very often, fortunately. Glad to help out when I can. Thanks for your effort on the article! – Luna Santin (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the vandalism revert

.. on the Glasses page. Much appreciated!

Reason turns rancid 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. :) Thanks for the time you've put into the article, I wouldn't have much to defend from vandalism if not for the many hours of hard work others have put into the project. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for welcome message

Dear Luna,

Thank you for your welcome message. I hope to be able to provide relevant and correct content.

Regards,

Jamescanavan 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Let me know if you run into difficulties or have any questions. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your recent clean-up on my user page - I did not even notice that random comment. Dust Filter 02:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But you're the dust filter! You're supposed to catch little things like that. :P --CableModem^^ 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Police & Sting

Don't stand so close to me. --CableModem^^ 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

I see, you've protected my talk-page. As I'm now unblocked, after a month of block, I think it is time to un-protect that talk page; I couldn't even answer you, and what I wanted to say was;

"I'm a sock, and I don't denie that at all! But since my unblockement on July the 26th, after a month of blocking my IP-adress, I was, again, able to edit. I was unblocked! Can you even possible imagine just how happy I was! This time, I will finally start doing nothing but good things, whenever I am online and editing. Yes, I had quite a lot socks, but now, that part of the whole thing is history. I will never, ever have socks again, I've sworn that day, and I'll never missuse any account again. I'm sorry for all the worries I've caused Chrislk02, User:Kermanshahi, and many others. I still am very fond on the many good things, and usefull edits my socks did. I often still look on the Dorus Rijkers-article, or my very first one, on the honourable Chief Lone Horn.I hope you can all forgive me, and accept my humble apologies. I now just want to start all over again. Fresh, and renewded. I hope, thats enough of an explanation for my behavior for the last couple a months."

"By 84.87.138.105 08:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)"

Actually, judging from page history, it was protected by User:Can't sleep; anyhow, since the block's expired, I've unprotected the page for now. Stay out of trouble, eh? ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I shall. And thanks, Luna Santin, thanks a lot! 84.87.138.105 10:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jason Defense Science Group

Thank you, Luna, for protecting that page. It's the second protection in the last week or so. I hope the vandal gets tired and goes away. AKath 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC) AKath

That's the plan, yep. :) I've watchlisted the page, but feel free to let me know if there's any further problems from this person. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Watchlist is a Buzz!

My watchlist is a buzz with your new IP hopper friend. I'll help you revert your new little friend if he keeps strolling by. You might have to sprotect yourself soon.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping we'd all become the best of friends, but now he's gone and left our tea party. :'( Thanks again. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My, my...I opened the block screen at 4.5 seconds...you actually reacted in >4 seconds...wow.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently rule #2 of Wikipedia is "don't mess with PPG." :p – Luna Santin (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Malcanthet

Um... I notice you blocked User:Malcanthet for 3 hours, very soon after he began blanking many pages immediately after his 31-hour block expired. He has made it clear, on his userpage and talk page, that he wants an indef block. Seems like a reasonable request to me, why not accomodate it? Then we can stop playing whack-a-mole reverting his vandalism. -Amatulic 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... it's a thought. No objection if somebody wants to extend that. I'm inclined to wait and see what happens, once the block expires. Small chance they'll calm down, no way they can do any permanent damage, anyway. But my feelings aren't too strong on the issue, either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My IP is blocked!

Hey I'd like to know what my IP (218.186.8.12) did to get blocked. Maybe its my kid bro. I am an established editor, (View my talk/contributions) Ashu just worked hard. xD 09:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that it's not "your" IP address in the sense most people might think, but rather a proxy connection used by quite a large number of people. The reason for the block itself is twofold, but both are directly connected to the number of people using the address. First, where there's lots of people, a certain number of them will be vandals or troublemakers (more people, more trouble), and the block cuts down on a lot of that -- people who are interested in editing can create an account and begin editing freely in just a few seconds, but people who aren't here to help think of that a lot less often than you might think. Second, a softblock on StarHub actually protects you (and countless other editors) from an endless series of 24-hour autoblocks that would otherwise be set by the server just about every time on the address gets blocked, by my understanding. Yes, these autoblocks can and usually are lifted, but it's not the most convenient thing, and usually involves waiting at least a few minutes (or, on a bad day, hours). So, hope that answers your question fairly well. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to National Liberation War of Macedonia

Please, because of permament vandalism of this article from anonimous users it have to be transformed in semiprotected! Jingby 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'll keep an eye on the page and see if any more crop up. Let me know if I miss anything. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I Am Seeing A 3RR Dispute

I would rather not get involved directly but I have noticed multiple 3RR violations between User:Workadded and User:SpigotMap over the use of Pokemon posters on various pages. -WarthogDemon 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Seems to have been fixed (eventually). -WarthogDemon 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry I wasn't more available, but glad to hear things are resolved. Let me know if you need any more help, over there. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

5 questions

I was wondering if you could answer these questions.

1) What is the use of a ban? It just sounds useless, using something like that instead of/with a block.

2) What if a banned user returns after a year and a half with a new account and becomes an admin and starts/majorly contributes to 2 now featured articles, for example. If he/she is found to be the same user as the banned user, will that user be blocked indef instantly and the two articles deleted entirely, no questions asked?

3) I know it says so, but when should Wikiquette be treated with occasional exception? There's nothing cooler than a Wikipedian editor who, while an edit war, does not argue and use attacks, and assumes good faith, even when the other editor is being quite rude (but not using personal attacks, of course). Same with WP:BITE.

4) Can I ask, when it comes to WP:3RR, what if he editor in question reverted vandalism. Would he still be blocked?

5) Is the following a violation of WP:NPOV? ...is frequently ranked as the greatest game of all time. It is verified, but the site in question states that it is one of the greatest games of all time, not THE greatest game of all time. Is that a textbook example of WP:AWW?

Just wanted to ask. LOZ: OOT 06:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions! Here goes:

1. In a nutshell, bans are policy, blocks are technical. Bans are (usually) implemented with blocks. If that makes sense.
2. That seems unlikely. In most circumstances, people are banned because their presence is disruptive; if their presence is no longer disruptive but is in fact helpful to the project, and the user has reformed, the ban may have lost its purpose (hard to speak in absolutes, without an absolute example to refer to).
3. I usually prefer to be as polite as possible with people who are acting in good faith. That doesn't mean that we can't be firm or resolute in our overall positions, as we do so (granted, some compromise is often needed).
4. Vandalism is usually considered an exception to 3RR -- the common pitfall here is that "vandalism" is defined very narrowly within Wikipedia policy. Other exceptions are listed at WP:3RR
5. Hard to say without any greater context, but that sounds a bit weasel-prone, yes. If anything, it may better to say who considers it to be the greatest game, as doing so is more specific, more honest, and ultimately a more powerful statement if the person or group is an authority in the field.

Hope those satisfy. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hey Luna, how do you start your own personal sandbox? I dislike the way other users delete what I'm trying to work at, or just use profane/distracting stuff there. LOZ: OOT 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow this link: Special:Mypage/Sandbox, edit and save, and you're all set. You can create any user subpage by using USERNAME/Foo (Special:Mypage is useful for this, to avoid the need for typing and typo checks). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Very much appreciated! LOZ: OOT 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you been to Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down lately? LOZ: OOT 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not for a while, nope. But I see you said some nice things about me. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sorry to have bothered you so much. LOZ: OOT 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But what is the basic use of saying a user is banned when a ban is enforced with a block? Why are the two not enforced as one policy and technical enforcement, not two different things? I still don't understand. LOZ: OOT 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of blocks come about to prevent simple vandalism or other blatant disruption; bans are more of a community issue, usually involving people who may be less obviously problematic, or who are so problematic as to warrant additional attention. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. It's used to ensure that the user is unable to edit Wikipedia at all, even with a new account, because the user is deemde problematic. I've been editing Wikipedia via my IP address for about three months, and never found tremendous need to register until about nine days ago. And yet you've helped me learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Thank you. LOZ: OOT 21:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Camilo Pombo

I have had the honor to known the Marqués de Logroño y el Pombal, Don Camilo Pombo for over thirty years. With absolute knowledge of this exemplary professional and Spanish subject, I can tell you that Mr. Camilo Pombo not only has no criminal record in the USA, but any where else in the world.

Mr. Pombo traveled to over 60 countries as a reporter. He covered more that 20 wars and turbulent situations in different parts of the globe. As the superb journalist that he is, and in his quest for reporting the truth, he was apprehended in various countries while doing his reporting job for being in the “wrong place.” With no exception, the Spanish embassy and different international journalistic organizations interceded in his behalf every time he was detained. He was always released due to fact that he was merely performing his journalistic duties. It doesn’t surprise me that some spiteful people out there has taken the only possible thing that could have a shred on doubt to try to shadow his exemplary behavior as a journalist, to twits it against him.

Winston McArthur BBC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.2.193.1 (talk) 10 August 2007

My, I hardly remember editing that page (Camilo Pombo-Sáenz, for anybody watching). As I recall, my edits were limited to removing some rather inflammatory comments from the article -- some because they violated Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, others because they were legal threats of the sort that definitely don't belong on an article (the threats themselves were inappropriate, but commentary should be saved for talk pages, regardless). I'll have a look when I get a chance and see if I can find the problematic material you must be referring to, but it would help if you could be more specific. Thanks for your concern. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

New user goin' bananas

Hi Luna, thought you might want to check out the edits of new user User:D bavscor. Not sure what's going on exactly, but a bunch of template edits right outta the gate seems suspicious (as well as tagging himself as a sockpuppet). Just thought you'd like to know as an active admin, wasn't sure what to report. All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Will keep an eye on that, thanks for letting me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I've been more of a lurker than anything else, so I can perfectly understand why you've missed me. I'm looking forward to more useful contributions in the future. By the way, I noticed your quick catch of the Harry Potter vandalism today. Great work! Kslogic 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Harry Potter. Do you like Harry Potter, Luna? My favourite's the fourth book. What's yours? LOZ: OOT 19:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:67.64.253.181

Thanks for protecting the page. He's a recurring vandal who pretty much just likes to get attention from me. He did stuff like that a few times before, but this time I figured I'd just let him have his fun since no one else is going to go to that page for now. Leebo ^T/C 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've realized I waffle on that issue -- sometimes I figure "eh, they're trapped in their own personal sandbox, who cares?" and other times I decide they need to be pushed to stop editing. Not sure what the basis for that is, I'd like to call it gut instinct, but that sounds like I'm making myself a clever excuse. ;) If you need any help watching out for them, let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that description -- "trapped in their own personal sandbox" -- heh. It just makes this guy's day to get a block warning from me so he can edit it with obscene comments and then have me protect the page! It must be so fulfilling :) Leebo ^T/C 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Found an eye-catching image

Luna, how do you nominate an image for FI status? The image in question is this one. LOZ: OOT 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And yes. It does have relevance to the article. LOZ: OOT 04:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Never actually gone through that process; I suppose you could find a featured image and work your way back, from there. Or see if WP:FA has any revealing links. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn/Sandbox

Hi, Luna. I notice you took an interest in the IP vandalizing my page, and I have to point out that something very ugly has happened. My User:Dahn/Sandbox was deleted (by the IP or another - all likely to belong to User:Bonaparte). The IPs pretended they were me, but didn't even try to be convincing at it (they simply used the word "I"), tagged it "speedy deletion", and, for reasons I cannot begin to comprehend, an admin granted their request. They tried a similar move on my user page, which, apparently for other reasons, failed. I find this to be unacceptable for the project and humiliating for me as a user. I was working on something on that page, and it is currently lost - all it took was quick vandalism. Is there a possibility for the content to be retrieved? And is there a possibility to demand that this does not happen in the future? Dahn 10:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Restored, for now; I'm guessing Pascal.Tesson assumed it was a {{db-userreq}} deletion request, and forgot to check. Given the other disruptive edits made by the same IP that requested deletion, I'll go ahead and restore, pending some sort of discussion. Leaving a note in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Since the page is mine, and the IP does not belong to me, I must say that the discussion would be largely beside the point (unless it is required as a bureaucratic measure, of course). Is it possible to protect the page from IPs or the newly-registered? Bonaparte has a long history of vandalizing my pages under various guises. Dahn 10:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If my assumption is correct (I really think it is, or I'd have asked and waited), we'll probably be done with this, yes. I was wondering if I should offer to protect some of your user subpages -- I can semi-protect pretty much everything except your user talk, on request. You'll probably ask me to protect your userpage and sandbox; if there's anything else (or you'd rather I didn't), let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be excellent. I also have two other sandboxes - User:Dahn/Common projects, User:Dahn/Templates - which I think should be protected as a precautionary measure. Thank you again. Dahn 11:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, all four are semi-protected. If you ever need them unprotected, for whatever reason, just let me or any other admin know. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for taking up your time. Dahn 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Untitled from 84.227.54.33

I chose to register so that I could edit that page, I was looking at the history and disagreed with what had been said, I didnt have an account or the desire to edit anything up until that point. If it had been another page and another edit you would ask the same question 'why THAT one' its ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.227.54.33 (talk) 12 August 2007

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're referring to? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Messaged me too and neither am I. Viridae^Talk 00:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Roe v Wade

You had no right to change my page. Roe v. Wade WAS corrupt. Is a fetus not living and is it not human? Please don't tell me that a fetus is a cat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadWhiz5000 (talk • contribs) 13 August 2007.

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It's not our place as project editors to decide whether the court's decision was or wasn't corrupt. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tomasthetankengine

You archived it. Um, why? The socks were marked as 'likely', but no action has been taken - no checkuser done, no blocks or exoneration. I'm not sure it's fair in either direction to be honest. Dibo ^{T | C} 11:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon ran a checkuser -- that's where the {{likely}} indicator came from. Cases are generally archived three days after CU response, this one's been up for four. As is mentioned on the WP:RFCU frontpage, the checkuser case pages are traditionally concerned only with the checkuser process, itself -- administrative actions can be undertaken by any administrator, or requested/discussed at the admin noticeboards. I would volunteer to do this, for you, at this point, but I'm not familiar with this particular situation, and I'm a bit too sleep deprived to go for any tough judgement calls, at the moment. Feel free to post at AN if you feel any blocks or such are appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I didn't know that. Dibo ^{T | C} 11:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a little confusing, definitely. :) I'll probably stumble off to sleep, here, in a few moments, but if you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Dibo ^{T | C} 09:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All loose ends tied up, thanks again! You've been really helpful. Dibo ^{T | C} 05:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it allowed?

Luna, is using multiple accounts in a positive way sockpuppetry? By that I mean, will doing this:

• Helping Wikipedia's articles with more than one account
• Allowing certain accounts to be constructively editing on different articles so as to organize work on the project

And NOT doing this:

• Using accounts to cause disruption of any sort
• Using accounts to gain the upper hand in a dispute
• Voting multiple times on an election of any sort
• Circumventing a block (not that I would get blocked, of course)

still result in a block? Just out of curiosity. LOZ: OOT 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Provided the accounts don't interact or do anything dishonest, it's usually not a problem. The real problems with sockpuppets come up when people use them to have several voices in a discussion, or to evade 3RR, things like that. To avoid any chance of trouble, it's sometimes good to be very open about the socks, perhaps labelling them on their userpages. But WP:SOCK should go into more detail on this. Not all sockpuppetry is inherently bad, we just spend most of our time in that area focusing on the times it is. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And now I find that I can't do that because User:Ryulong directly blocked my shared IP Address and account creation until October 7. I wish I had my own IP address. I wish people would stop vandalizing Wikipedia. It really gives us bad publicity.

But your efforts are exceptional beyond exceptional. I'm wondering though, have I done anything to vandalize or damage Wikipedia that you have noted as a possible mistake? LOZ: OOT 06:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Luna, I just created a new account (User:Rouge Crimson). Are there some administrators who will block me for this? I know you won't, but are there some who will? LOZ: OOT 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not creating the account, necessarily, but more what you do with it. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To organize my work here better. LOZ: OOT 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

YOUR COMMENT ON RYULONG's page about conflict of interest

Well, if there is a conflict of interest what is it? How can I fix it so that there is no more conflict of interest? I don't understand why there is a problem with me posting this article if the purpose of the article is to provide people with credible information. Please tell me what the conflict of interest is and how I am supposed to take care of it and remove it so that my article is uploaded and left alone. I personally do not see why I am having trouble with this and would like to be helped in solving the problem.

QuakeSim 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way, if you will -- I'm somebody who's committed over a year of my time to Wikipedia. If I write a blog entry about Wikipedia, or if I go on forums and post about Wikipedia, am I a neutral source of information? Would I be posting to those forums for the sake of the people on the forums, or for the sake of Wikipedia? As I said, I haven't read up on this particular case, so I'm afraid I can't comment very specifically, but please try to understand the angle Ryulong is coming from, I suspect an angle that's wary you may be one more in a long string of people working for marketing departments and other, similar interests. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Hi, Luna, as you may see for yourself, a sock of User:Bonaparte is reverting my edits en masse. Can we have him blocked for a while? --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, is that who that is? Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He went crazy after his sock User:BOT2008BOT was exposed and banned. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dajcn

Dajcn (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I have given an "only warning" for their impersonation of you, and what I consider severe trolling. Do you this this is appropriate? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly that sort of behavior is problematic; in this case, it's problematic and not their first account, for the night, so I went ahead and blocked. In other news, we're up to {{user16}} in templates? Wow, heh. :p Thanks for the note, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I made {{User16}}. It sorta has the whole lot mushed in together :) Back to the subject - thanks for blocking. Nearly gave me a heart attack there... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a really weird feeling that he's similar to Dicjie for some reason....Especially after he was blocking people using your name. --DarkFalls ^talk 10:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt we've seen the last of him... --DarkFalls ^talk 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Thank you both. ;) I'll play this one by ear, if I happen to spot them again. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism And Slander

User:Scjessey continues to vandalize my talk pages as well as using slandering remarks he deletes my suggestions in the discussion pages and gives false warnings and personal attacks in my talk pages I complained before but no action was taken please respond.Hightilidie 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is, of course, a complete falsehood. User:Hightilidie is a link spammer, adding the same link to multiple pages connected to web development and associated technologies. I have followed the proper warning procedure, which eventually resulted in User:Hightilidie receiving the 24 hour ban you gave. User:Hightilidie responded by placing a vandalism warning on my talk page, which I have removed. I am providing this additional information purely for your reviewing convenience. -- Scjessey 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Again more slandering remarks the same link was not posted to every article for your information a link was only submitted to the appropriate information for each article that would have been beneficial to the user. How come you didn't delete this or send me a false warning again User:Scjessey. Hightilidie 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Appears that User:Hightilidie is blocked at this time; sorry I wasn't around to offer a quicker response. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	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 20:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Hell

I haven't violated 3RR myself have I? I've made that mistake in the past (fortunately I learned before a block was needed and have tried carefully to avoid doing so now.

Looks like you're at 2 or 3 on all but one of the pages I'm looking at, currently. If any more sockpuppets crop up, I'll deal with them right quick; otherwise, it's probably best if this all settles down for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

2 or 3 3RR violations you mean? -WarthogDemon 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Errr, reverts. ;) An important distinction, though, heh. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to avoid reverts where it'd be directly reverting to mine (though I'm not sure if that'd be canvassing...) -WarthogDemon 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a new one: User:TurkmenstanSSR. -WarthogDemon 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha. o.o I see PPG got it. Thanks for letting me know, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

in response

Of course, you are absolutely right about wikipedia not being a battleground, and I will stop my "battle" accordingly. But I do want to bring to your attention the actions of my worthy opponent downwards. It seems like a fairly high percentage of his edits are aimed solely at causing people grief under the guise of enforcing policy. I will be the first to admit that I have not behaved admirably, and his actions do not excuse mine. But a look at his talk page shows countless incidents where people have tried in vain to be reasonable with him on matters only to met with a smug, condescending remark for their trouble. I just wanted to get his attention and cause him some of the consternation he has caused others, but it's over, i'm willing to be the bigger man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KatoABJV (talk • contribs) 15 August 2007.

Certainly I can look into that sort of thing; I'm not at all concerned that two people are disagreeing, that happens quite a bit and is usually a sign of a healthy community. But these disagreements and conflicts need to be resolved productively (and peacefully), whenever possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, but this isn't really a disagreement, but a pattern of anti-social behavior I've observed coming from this editor. But it's over now, as long as he refrains from his rude comments, I have no issue with letting this go. KatoABJV 03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry to bring you into this, but he's at it again, I added a perfectly reasonable and verifiable edit to the Don Mattingly article that was verifiable just by typing his name into google and Downwards deleted it saying it wasn't verifiable. I thought we had put this behind us, but I guess it isn't personal as he does this constantly to everyone. Instead of verifying facts that aren't cited he just removes them to vex other editors, in my case out of spite. Not really what we need in our community. KatoABJV 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hm. Dropped off a message on their talk page. On the one hand, it wasn't sourced (I see you added a source, thank you), but on the other hand, I'm concerned by anything that could even be construed as stalking. I'll see what they have to say about it. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, note that I am certainly not the first to have this issue with downwards, on his own talk page there are countless others all asking the same questions, "why did you delete my edits repeatedly?" "why do you constantly say this is vandalism?" etc. It seems very small minded and pigheaded, granted I was immature in my response to what I saw, but I was pretty disgusted with his behavior and I stopped as soon as I was warned about it. It's just the way he talks to people so smug, and arrogant and his responses to any questions are just the same way.

Hi Luna Santin, I've responded accordingly on my talk page. I'd appreciate your thoughts when you have the time.--Downwards 22:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My new account

Here I am in my alternate account. Now you can call me sort of a hippie, man.

Just kidding. But I have to ask you something. Am I allowed to edit the same page as my other account does? Not that I'd want to, but still, in case I accidentally edit the ones I want to edit in the other account. The Rouge 06:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it; if you accidentally do so, a comment to the talk page clarifying the mistake couldn't hurt. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as I recommend on my main talk page. Luna, I've changed my mind; I don't want a second account. Just this one, that's all. What do I do with the other one? LOZ: OOT 06:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You can just avoid using it. If you're really sure, you could scramble the password. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The account is lost in a misbegotten password, doomed to wander through limbo for all eternity! Thanks for the suggestion! LOZ: OOT 07:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ksy92003/Discussion

Hey there, Luna Santin. I haven't been able to say this yet, but thank you for stepping in and doing something with this issue.

Anyway, I'm coming to you about this because you are the user who blocked Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and I believe you are aware of the situation, as well as my userfied version of the discussion which Jmfangio took me to ANI for. I'm asking these questions on the advice of Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) who suggested I ask you about this for future reference. Below are the two points, quoted from Baseball Bugs on my talk page (with minor changes to make it read as first-person as opposed to second-person, which was what it was originally posted by Baseball Bugs, as he was talking to me; there are too many brackets with the changes made to show what I changed from what Bugs said, so I bolded the changes for your convenience):

1. Is there any issue with what I posted at User:Ksy92003/Discussion?
2. Does the 3-revert rule apply to me on my own talk page or userfied subpage, where the discussion currently rests?

If I could get responses to either/both of these questions as soon as possible, most preferably before Jmfangio's block expires Wednesday night so I can prepare for his return, that would be greatly appreciated, Luna Santin. Ksy92003(talk) 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Important questions. ;) On the first, I'm not aware of any problem at the moment, but that's not quite the same thing as saying there isn't or couldn't be a problem. For example, if you made a habit of quoting particular user(s) out of context or in some way which could be construed as malicious or harassment, that might be a problem. Keeping such pages can be controversial, especially if they become any sort of "hitlist" or slam book -- it's somewhat common to prepare an RfC in userspace, but if it becomes a habit to do so without ever filing the RfC, that can be a similar problem. It also depends on your prior interactions with the people involved, and your apparent motives, of course. So there are quite a few factors in play, there. On the second question, 3RR is usually relaxed in the userspace of the associated user, but depending on circumstances (removal of MfD or other important process tags, say) it may still apply, and I'd recommend being careful about it anyway, just to be on the safe side. It's difficult to be mindful of the ways various people may interpret events and behaviors. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll say I wasn't expecting a reply tonight. I requested page protection at WP:RFPP, just in case. I don't know if that will do anything; it would serve no purpose, I suppose, because then even I wouldn't be able to edit it, and that would just be stupid... but I'm so tired right now; I removed the WP:RFPP because if I fully protect it, then I can't edit it, and it serves no purpose at all then, and semi-protecting won't do anything because Jmfangio could still vandalize it.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to deal with this issue; sorry for dragging you into it. But nice to meet you. Ksy92003(talk) 08:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Attack pages

Just a quick note, when deleting attack pages such as ShanE159, sometimes the default "content was 'blah blah blah'" summary is a slight WP:BLP problem. Doesn't seem like a big deal in this case, just something I happened to notice when deleting it a second time (somebody's persistent). In any case, nice to run into you, and keep up the good work. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Luna, and thanks for letting me know, I didn't realise I'd left the default summary there.

Thanks, and you too! Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for your reply at the help desk (sockwatch suggestion). Building it looks like work, but I might actually try that. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually too hard -- once you build a list of pages, the toolbox on the left side of the screen has a "related changes" link that'll show all recent changes to all linked pages. My version is a little more robust, but yours doesn't need to be, unless you want to. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

for showing me about {{notice}} I appreciate it! SLSB talk • contrib 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Commission Association

Thanks for reverting that vandalism. The last thing this article needs is more random IP edits deleting whole sections. We've been trying to make careful edits within consensus for the last few weeks, and the vandalism was threatening to ruin our work. Nswinton\^talk 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Report at WP:AN/I

I made my first ever actual report at AN/I. WP:ANI#User:Chatchien LOZ: OOT 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Luna, allow me to ask. Does POV stand for Policy of Verification, or Point of View? LOZ: OOT 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually, point of view is referred to as NPOV, but POV is still commonly used. I've never heard Policy of Verification before. Ksy92003(talk) 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means "Neutral point of view", the wikipedia policy against taking an editorial stand in articles. That doesn't mean giving equal weight to crackpot theories or to all sides, as some think (especially those pushing crackpot theories). I haven't heard "Policy of verification", and I doubt wikipedia would use it due to inherent confusion. I think that policy would be covered in WP:CITE. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bushido

I jumped the gun with my vandalism report (which is why I reverted it a minute later). It appears that Bushido did indeed hastily put the images back on his page after I took them off a 2nd time however he reversed his reversal after reading my warning. I'm not sure a lock is necessary.--Dr who1975 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ack. Serves me right -- I skimmed the diffs and figured I'd seen enough, but I had missed the most important one. I've unprotected, for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

New Covenant Theology

I want to know why you removed the link, http://www.newcovenanttheology.com as a link to gospel preaching without the law. You need to realize that no current teacher attempts to set himself apart from the legalists, and that includes Jon Zens, who may say he believes in gospel preaching, but does not set himself apart in the way the 1646 people did. I am being true to the beliefs of that confession. No one else is. Gary Bgamall

Mainly because the user who added it, 76.106.160.189 (talk · contribs), appeared to be a likely spammer, and was pasting identical or similar links into several articles; such behavior can be problematic, especially if the user refuses to discuss their changes. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for moving my page back to normal and blocking BIGCANDICEFAN. However, I am having trouble since the vandalism. My user page and user talk page no longer appear on my relevant changes watchlist. What has gone wrong? - Deep Shadow 04:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Not sure why that might be happening; check if the move took the pages off of your watchlist, maybe? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My user talk page now appears, but my user page doesn't. It's still on the watchlist, but it just doesn't appear on the changes list. - Deep Shadow 05:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That fixed it. Thanks again. :) - Deep Shadow 05:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good. :p I wasn't sure if it would, but figured it might. Cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. I just thought I would let you know that the user you indef blocked, BIGCANDICEFAN, has returned as CandiceLOVER. The evidence is here. First they post using the IP address of 66.157.50.115, then an account similar to before removes the IP post with a post of their own. The account was also created 9 minutes after the IP post, and their first edit was 2 minutes after that. - Deep Shadow 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I've blocked the account. Autoblock should hit their IP address for a bit. They may be back, though; let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another sock: CANDICEMAN (diff) - Deep Shadow 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And another: Ilovecandice (diff). They don't want to take no for an answer. - Deep Shadow 19:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Both gone. Think I'll semi-protect those articles, too, for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... there's a fair amount of IP activity at both, actually. It's probably more effective if we just keep an eye on things. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep posting about this, but the user is currently editing on an IP address (Special:Contributions/66.157.26.180). - Deep Shadow 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Checked diffs, one in particular was quite telling. Dynamic IP, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I sent an email back to both you and that other address you gave me with that information. Thanks for your help. Hopefully this will save everyone sometime down the line. Imsaguy 06:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. We'll hopefully have that taken care of, tonight or tomorrow. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PostSecret spin-offs extlink list

There's been some discussion about it on the talk page. Seems to be a general feeling that there's too much and too listcrufty, but no consensus about if any should be included (and if so, how many or which ones). Might want to comment there to avoid reviving a long-running slow-motion edit-war. DMacks 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I took a quick glance at the history and didn't spot a fast edit war, but on a second look, it does look like a slower one going on. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Situation you addressed last night

Again, I'm back at where i started with these editors. Said user continues to comment on my talk page, and then commented on an RFC i had filed against Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). I made a response to that comment and left it at that. He then jumped in on a question i had asked, i gave him a simple reply and then he replied again. I posted something and quickly thought better of it and removed it before he ever made another comment here - it was done with in seconds despite his statement that he had already typed up a response. Regardless, nothing had been posted when i removed the information and he put it back in there. (we're talking within seconds of the post - i removed it). This is ludicrious. These people won't leave me alone. I have told them both millions of times - the only reason i'm editing the template they want to change is because they won't leave it alone and it has massive implications. He is now onto the 3RR violations - this is ridiculous and even though I haven't touched his copy of my comments to his talk page (despite my well known objections to their allowed use) - i'm getting fed up with having to deal with this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not worth edit warring over; the idea of an RfC is to hear everybody out, after all, isn't it? Unless there's some pressing reason these comments shouldn't be present. On the flip side, I don't know if there's a pressing reason the comments need to be present, either -- it takes two to edit war, and it seems like everybody could put a bit more effort into being accomodating, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again...

Jmfangio has once again began to harass me for no reason. This began at Dick Lane (American football) where I was removing the links in the infobox for a lot of players (I eventually completed two of 32 teams). However, Jmfangio doesn't agree with my edits, reverted me several times, and reported me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Making Contentious edits while content dispute is in place. I gave him a quote from WP:DATE (which I actually see now that it has been removed; here is the quote:)

If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006 [to 2006 in sports], although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination.

This supports that removal of the links is perfectly acceptable, and I've given him this quote (which was on User talk:Aviper2k7 when I got it today, it was a part of a large dispute several months back). The result of that discussion was that the links may be removed from the infobox, as it doesn't seem to hurt nor help the reader's understanding of the article. I don't know where that exact discussion is now because I wasn't a part of it. I told Jmfangio that, yet he continues to fight against me at ANI and reverting my edits at the Dick Lane article. I told him that he was on the verge of Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking a couple times. I can't believe that this is worth taking me to ANI for. Can you please help resolve this conflict? Ksy92003(talk) 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, when I can (also noting Jmfangio's thread, directly above), but I'm a bit busy at the moment. Looks like the both of you have taken this to AN/I in my absence, I'll see what I might do when I have more time. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Hey, man. I have a few questions:

1) What is an administrator, considering you are one yourself?

2) What is the minimum amount of time and edits I'd need to prove that I'm responsible enough for the mop?

3) What are the basic responsibilities of a sysop?

4) What if I accidentally violate the 3RR? Am I able to request an unblock if this happens? If so, would an admin usually decline?

5) Where are the Wikipedia templates kept?

6) Let's say I'm blocked for suspected sockpuppetry, and yet I am not a sockpuppeteer, but use a shared IP address with the same user as somebody else who has seemingly suspicious connections with me. What do I do then (not that it'll happen, of course)?

7) What are the overall guidelines to making an article featured?

8) How, exactly do you know when vandalism is taking place? I try looking at recent changes, but I just can't find anything.

Just wondering stuff. LOZ: OOT 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to go on a brief Wikibreak, probably to play Chrono Trigger. Good luck, Luna Santin. LOZ: OOT 10:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Administrators gives a general description. If you were looking for a more philosophical perspective, at the moment I'm reminded of something Ron Ritzman said on wikien-l
2. It's not something that can be judged by edit count.
3. Varies from person to person -- there are quite a few jobs to be done, from fixing copyright problems to mediating heated disputes to dealing with vandals and trolls. Tasks in Category:Administrative backlog, I suppose. In general, admins should be familiar with and in compliance with policies and best practices, and should be helpful and productive users.
4. You can request unblocking, yes; whether it would be granted is a harder question depending on quite a few circumstances.
5. See WP:TEMP -- there's quite a lot of them. ;)
6. Interesting question. That all depends on circumstances. In general, you can request unblocking through the various means of appeal, but also remember that the best medicine is prevention -- if you're careful to avoid situations where that might become an issue, or if you even disclose any possible issues before they become relevant, that may help.
7. You'll probably get a decent idea of that from watching a few discussions at WP:FAC or peer review.
8. A complete answer to that would be WP:BEANSy, but I'd recommend checking out Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and finding a tool that works for you.

There you have it, I guess. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Luna. You really have helped me get started here. LOZ: OOT 10:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If I become an sysop someday, then I'd probably determine whether articles should be deleted or not, as well as recent changes patrol. I would be responsible with the tools. But I won't be sysopped for another, oh, maybe...five or so months, perhaps? LOZ: OOT 09:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sheep

Aww, cute little sheepy-sheepy-sheepy. LOZ: OOT 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Luna, just out of curiosity, why do you have a sheep on your userpage? LOZ: OOT 04:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a subliminal message: no one can pull the wool over this admin's eyes. Now, why am I suddenly hungry for a gyro? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I bet it's because he thinks it's cute. Oh, little sheepy-sheepy-sheepy. LOZ: OOT 08:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of revert

Hi. I have closed many tens of 3rr reports and that fourth edit was a revert, not borderline. Thanks. El_C 11:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, partial reverts are still reverts. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You left the unblock request open, so I thought you had reservations. El_C 11:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing specific, more of a "I need sleep terribly and don't exactly trust myself to make any difficult decisions at the moment" thing. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy that! El_C 11:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

123.100.51.43 is back

I've noticed that you were the one who blocked this IP a week ago. He's back, and according to his most recent vandalism to the September 9 article, he seems to be only 12-13 years old. Is there any preemptive blocking/contacting measure to regulate the edits from this IP? Thanks, Lisatwo 11:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been blocked by DarkFalls. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Negroid

This is the third time Funkynusayri has attempted to introduce the same photos that have no context to the article. Each time the consensus has been against the use of photos. Muntuwandi 23:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I might suggest you make a post at the village pump, asking for more input from the community at large. Since I'm acting as an administrator, in this instance, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to offer an opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation on wikipedia is extremely unreliable and has been unhelpful on all the occasions that I have tried to use it. Muntuwandi 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I'll go and see if I can get a few people to comment. Soliciting pretty widely, to hopefully be sure of neutrality. In any case, if people are persistently going against consensus, I recommend RfC, AN/I (or 3rr), and ARBCOM. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

He has violated the 3RR rule funkynusayri (talk · contribs) and has another case [2]

Muntuwandi 02:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I see he's been blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there's a term I haven't heard since Anthropology 101. That's in contrast to Caucasoid, for example. The state of Iowa is full of white people, hence the traditional presidential meetings called the Iowa Caucasoids. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware we had an article on it, yeah. But now we know! :p – Luna Santin (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:81.68.98.95

I warned him against trolling to no avail.Proabivouac 01:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the effort. Some people just can't be helped, I guess. x.x Blocked, by now. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Proabivouac 03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people can't be helped, I guess.Proabivouac 01:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, that's who it was. Given their questions, it seemed likely they were a sockpuppet of somebody or other, but not somebody I recognized quickly, or remember dealing with. Glad that's settled. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad. I recognized him right away, but I let him go unreported on a promise of good behavior: it wasn't kept. He pledged to return with more sockpuppets. I don't expect we'll have a hard time identifying them.Proabivouac 02:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The more prolific people tend to be easy to spot, after a while. Good call. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

I keep trying to add this fight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miguel_Cotto&oldid=151850156

and it consistently gets reverted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miguel_Cotto&oldid=151919347) when I provide a source for the fight. Who is wrong?

MMAfan2007 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I would suggest using wording more akin to "is scheduled to" rather than "will," but I think you both have points. WP:CRYSTAL is a useful guideline to keep in mind (our general "bias" toward things which have already happened, as opposed to things which will or might), but we do still offer things like movie release estimates, or the dates of upcoming major political elections. Seems it's sometimes decided case-by-case (as with most editorial decisions), so there's probably a question of how important this match is, and how definite it is (we give movie release dates, yes, but we generally don't cover movies which haven't had some serious efforts at production, yet -- there is a line, in there, somewhere). I might have a more helpful opinion if I were a bigger fan of boxing, but hopefully that gives some context. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I did what you stated and the user insists of removing it. Would it be possible for you to let this person know that I did exactly what you told me? MMAfan2007 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are more problems to his edits than simply crystal ball gazing, the style he is writting in is not appropiate for a GAC or any other article for that mather, he uses slang such as "bout" and phrases such as "is scheduled to face", I already told him to improve the language and he is ignoring it, the fact that I have told him to use the cite web template and he ignores it isn't helping the situation either. Now I won't get into a 3RR violation or a edit war over it but I won't let two months of work go down the drain because someone reads one of these edits and fail the article for "prose issues." - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If the language is a problem, the language can be improved easily enough -- people can contribute useful information without using professional-grade English, I figure. Other problems, of course, may not be so easy to resolve. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the edit and made it sound more professional but this user consistently reverts it. I am requesting either a ban or an investigation from several administrators. This is getting ridiculous. I have done nothing but try to contribute, but yet this user decides to revert my edits because he/she thinks it's not written properly. I suggested to the user that he/she fix the sentence, but he/she refused to do so and decided to revert the edits. MMAfan2007 20:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that I haven't violated any policy, you edit is equal as it was before, I gave you pointers to fix and you passive-agressively told me to do it myself and threatened to report me, well news flash, I haven't violated the 3RR and I have the right to revert if it isn't disrustive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it the best to my abilities. I honestly don't understand how you want me to write it. MMAfan2007 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind I'll do it, you are lucky you got me in a good mood after Ivan Calderón humiliated Hugo Cazares last night. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

For reverting the vandalism to my user page I just noticed today. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You bet. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Attention requested on an RFC

Please take a look at my recent additions to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson. Not only did i add some more content related "problems", i have requested an immediate and unbiased course of action. We need some serious help here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually moving, tomorrow, so I've only got time to do anything web-related while I'm between trips and lifting. This whole affair seems a bit more complicated than all that. =\ You could possibly post to the village pump or admin noticeboards if it's urgent. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

there lack of NPOV was exactly the point of the edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.132.20 (talk) 22:26:58, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable, but the problem with letting people express their own opinions on articles (especially in the lead, as you did) is that, if we let everyone do that, then NPOV will quickly be lost in a sea of partisan bickering with no sourcing. "Some people have said" usually means "I think," and so on. If we're hoping to avoid that, in controversial situations it's sometimes best if we can instead attribute all criticisms to reliable sources, especially experts with credentials in the relevant field, whenever possible. That nudges us a little closer to the direction I'd generally prefer, that of reporting a variety of mainstream thought and knowledge. If that makes sense. Hoping not to be overbearing, here, either. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Normally I would report this WP:AIV, but he hasn't vandalized after a level 4 warning, but has vandalized 5 times.

All the edits were exactly the same.

As the IP 204.117.83.102 made four edits 1, 2, 3, 4. He was at a level 3 warning.

Six minutes later, a new account made the exact same edit, here. I gave him a level 4 warning. He hasn't done anything else yet. But I think he might strike again later. I was wondering if he can be banned for creating a vandalism only account. Thanks ---CWY2190^TC 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost contribution!

I submitted an article about 3 weeks ago on the hazards of exploding bottles of carbonated drinks and it seems to have disappeared into the ether! I am therefore re-submitting it and wait to be advised by you on where you want to place it. The article has, in fact, been edited further from my original submission.

ARTICLE FOLLOWS:

The Health Hazards of Exploding Pop Bottles

All unprotected glass bottles fracture if impacted with sufficient force. On most occasions that simply means dropping a bottle on to a hard floor, deliberately or, more often, by accident. Sometimes the failure is contemporaneous with the moment of impact; at other times, with lower energy impacts, there is a delay that could result in failure after a matter of seconds, minutes or even days following the impact, depending on the growth of the micro-fissure to a critical level and the residual stress in the glass. If the bottle contains a fizzy (carbonated) drink then catastrophic failure occurs with explosive violence. A damaged glass bottle containing a fizzy drink parallels a loaded gun with a hair trigger that is capable of spontaneous action.

The gas pressure increases with temperature and in a hot environment, can be 100 psi or more, such as when the capped bottle is left in direct sunlight or in a car on a hot day. Glass bottles are designed to withstand pressures in excess of 200 psi, but that means very little if the bottle has been subjected to impacts and abrasion that result in micro-fissures, thereby compromising its strength. In such circumstances, from the sustained carbonation pressure, spontaneous, explosive failure can occur with disastrous consequences. Being largely a child-line, it is the unsuspecting 5 to 14-year olds that more often fall prey to exploding bottles. By way of example, during 1989 to 1993 the UK Department of Trade and Industry recorded 1645 injuries from exploding, pop bottles ranging from lacerations to loss of eyesight.

The ballistic energy of an exploding bottle for a given carbonation level (known as carbonation volume) is determined by the temperature and pressure above atmospheric pressure known the gauge pressure. {The theory is complex: a detailed analysis is available in Food Science and Technology Today 10(1) 1996}. The larger the headspace - i.e. gas volume between the liquid level and brim of the bottle - the more pressure energy is available to be transferred as kinetic energy to the shards of glass at the moment of failure. Conversely, the smaller the headspace, the less energy there is to propel the shards. A bottle filled brim-full with a carbonated drink has no pressure energy and, when it undergoes failure, it does so in exactly the same way as a bottle full of still water - i.e. without explosive force. For many years following first commercial bottling of carbonated drinks by Schweppe more than 200 years ago, there was the misconception by the bottling industry that a minimum headspace needed to exist in order to act as a pressure buffer for the carbon dioxide. The reality is that pressure remains practically unaffected by the magnitude of the headspace, in accordance with Henry’s Law of gas solubility that essentially states that, the mass of a gas dissolved by a given volume of liquid, at constant temperature, is proportional to the pressure of the gas with which it is in equilibrium. In other words, as the headspace decreases, then more gas becomes dissolved in the water to maintain a constant pressure in the headspace and vice versa.

The ramification to this is that a fizzy drink becomes less hazardous from the point of view of its pressure energy, the smaller the headspace and that the internal pressure remains constant at a specific temperature and carbonation volume as the headspace volume is decreased (or increased). Thus, a bottle filled to 97.5% has about half the explosive energy as a bottle filled to 95%. With modern filling plant there is a very high level of precision in fill volumes which are determined, not by the bottle capacity, but by the fill height from the brim. It for this reason, that bottlers can readily and reliably reduce the pressure energy by maximising the fill level, allowing for any liquid expansion; water expands 1% over a 40 C temperature range above the chilled, filling temperatures on bottling plants.

In recognition of the avoidable pressure energy of carbonated drinks, in 1988 the British Standards Institute (BSI) recommended a maximum limit to headspace of 3.5% which, in practice, means a target fill of about 98.3% to allow for statistical variations in fill levels whilst still allowing for liquid expansion. Because of the non-enforceable nature of the Standard, not all bottlers comply with it. But that is a risk that could prejudice a defence in any litigation and claim for injury compensation.

The wide-spread introduction of plastic (PET) bottles, whilst having removed the fragmentation characteristic of exploding glass, is not entirely hazard free. The large size of the bottles - typically up to 3 litres as opposed to less than 1 litre for glass for reasons of safety - creates larger headspaces and, thereby, increased pressure energy within that headspace. If the cap thread crosses the thread of the neck of the bottle - this can happen when a sealed bottle has its cap twisted the wrong way causing it to jack into an, unstable and asymmetric position - then the cap may spontaneously “missile” from the bottle at theoretical velocities in excess of 300 mph. If the bottle is gripped in such a way as to allow the cap to impact an eye, then the victim loses an eye. There are several recorded cases of such missiling outcomes leading to loss of an eye, especially among children. The terms “missiling” and “tailing” are well known to the bottling industry and both relate to explosive separation of the cap from the bottle, the latter at the tail-end of the neck thread where the vertical cuts designed to release gas whilst unscrewing the cap become choked by excessive frothing of the contents, typically from shaking the bottle.

For a while the bottling industry reacted to this hazard by attaching the cap to the neck of the bottle by a plastic strip forming an integral part of the closure design and known as a ‘pig’s tail’. This was not well received by consumers because the cap readily interfered with the pouring action. Under pressure from litigants by victims of such injuries the industry improved the closure design, dispensing with the captive concept and providing graphic displays of the direction in which to twist the cap for its controlled removal.

--Edward Willhoft 15:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you posted this at WP:INTRO. If you check your contributions (Special:Contributions/Edward Willhoft), you should be able to find it in the page history pretty quickly. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi there, thanks for undoing this block message! umdrums 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, of course. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Watchtower Sentinel

He has been harassing me by making changes to my talk pages and archives, but insists that nobody can restore warning on his talk page. I'd like my talk archives deleted since he keeps abusing them. Can you help? IPSOS (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've actually just blocked him under 3rr -- planning on leaving the deletion decision to another admin, provided they get a chance to look at it. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have repeatedly asked him to leave my talk pages and archives alone, but he keeps messing with them, claiming that comments have to be left to "resolve a dispute" while at the same time removing comments on the very same issue from the very same admin on his talk pages and reverting multiple editors who restore them. I am quite happy to let him manage his own talk page, but only if he leaves mine alone. IPSOS (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So neither of you will stop reverting until the other stops reverting, essentially? Sounds like a recipe for trouble. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I said that I've asked him to stop messing with my user pages. I've requested this on his talk page multiple time, and he keeps removing the request and pretending that I haven't made the request, all the while claiming divine right over his own talk page. I've tried to strike a rude comment I made an apologize, but he keeps removing the strike-out because he want to use it to get me blocked. Basically, anything on my talk page has to be restored, but no one is allowed to restore anything on his talk page. He needs to understand that he simply can't apply different rules for himself. If he can do what he wants to my page, then I can do what I want to his. I don't want it to be that way, I want him to leave mine alone and acknowledge my request about mine and agree to leave my pages alone. IPSOS (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is more that both of you seem to be waiting for the other to take the first step. Until one of you becomes willing to do so, that'll cause nothing but drama. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I am done. But please keep a close eye on him when his block expires. You at least know that I've make a legitimate request that he leave my user pages alone. Because of his manuevering, I have no faith that other admins will be able to see through his revisionism. IPSOS (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional Contribution

Subject: Soft Drinks - Carbonation, Headspace and Vacuity

The volume of carbon dioxide (CO₂) gas at one atmosphere pressure (1 bar at 20<^oC defined in British Standard BS:6119 Part 1, 1981) dissolved in a soft drink is known as the carbonation volume. Some countries use a different and, arguably, less confusing measure of carbonation by referring to the mass of gas dissolved in a litre of the water, or as a percentage (w/v) of the water. 1 carbonation volume is equal to 1.95 g/l of water or 0.195% w/v. The gas space between the liquid level and the brim is the headspace volume expressed either as a percentage volume of the bottle capacity, or in units of ml. An alternative measure of headspace volume, widely adopted in English speaking countries, is "vacuity". This method of quantifying headspace is less helpful in that it is expressed as the headspace relative to the liquid volume and normally expressed as a percentage (v/v). For small headspace volumes (less than 10%), headspace volume and vacuity (C) numerically approach one another with decreasing volume. However, a vacuity of 100% means that the headspace volume is the same as the liquid volume from the definition of C, vis:

                                                         C   =   {H/L} x 100%   

Target vacuities for litre bottles are 3.5% in the UK and generally between 3.5 and 4.5% elsewhere. The lower target vacuity in the UK, introduced in 1988 by the BSI, is a recognition of the potential hazards of uncontrolled release of the pressure energy within the headspace volume - determined by the absolute volume and carbonation pressure - in the event of bottle failure (qv hazards of carbonated soft drinks).

--Edward Willhoft 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Afgirl999

Hi Luna, just giving you a heads-up that I've blocked this account. If they want to apologize, they can do it through mail, otherwise, they should just wait till the IP auto-block ends and make a constructive account. I auto-blocked the IP because it's possible if a person has created a malicious account before they could do it again. Do review my actions, I appreciate any input you could give me regarding these cases that fall in the gray area. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Obviously from my post, not what I'd have done at first glance, but this seems like a really minor case, not the sort of situation where I find the difference in approach troubling at all. Left it up to get a second opinion, after all. :) Thanks for the heads up, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, I'm glad we talked it over. Have a good one :-) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of IP 24.146.29.21

I saw you blocked IP 24.146.29.21 yesterday, but you didn't put anything on 24.146.29.21's talk page. I added the information about the block there so people using that IP address would know why they were blocked based on your comments in the block log. Hopefully I did that right. Feel free to correct it if I didn't, and thanks for blocking the vandal and reverting many of his/her/its edits. -- HiEv 11:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Open proxy blocks in particular tend to last a long time (frequently indefinitely), and the "new messages" banner will only blink for the first person who happens to see it, so that's my rationale for the apparent oversight. Either way, thanks for your attention. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the unblock. I made the edit on my laptop last night, and have been on my computer all day. I just came on my laptop and went onto edit Wikipedia only to get that message. Thanks again. Davnel03 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. :) It's fairly common to overlook the autoblock(s), even when unblocking somebody, which is a bit unfortunate. Add to that, the nifty search tool appears to be down, at the moment (it wasn't finding the autoblock, which may be why they didn't lift it...). Anyhow, that's hopefully all good and done. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

stop please

stop blocking me please I am not commiting vandalism and just because I had a block evasion doesn't mean you have to right. I guess well can you please just stop blocking me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.32.144 (talk • contribs)

Luna Santin, just so you know, that post was by BIGCANDICEFAN. - Deep Shadow 00:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think she know she doesn't need you telling her and this isn't BIGCANDICEFAN that was like 4 accounts ago this is ilovecandice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.6.118.236 (talk) 21:09, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

You're the same person. - Deep Shadow 21:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok i didn't come on his/her page to talk or fight with you so end of our conversation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.6.118.236 (talk) 21:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi a month ago you blocked me for a month. i would like to apoligize for the vandalism this wireless network that used to be unsecured the problem has been resolved by securing my wireless network after thinking that they might be able to bypass the firewall and vandalize wikipedia67.87.225.29 00:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	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 05:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Funkynusayri

Is back causing trouble again on the Negroid article. Muntuwandi 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had many chances to get online, recently; I see the page has been protected, since then. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:220.239.56.240

I see you blocked the above IP, who made a number of non-constructive edits to LaSalle Catholic College, Bankstown. There's been a number of similarly non-constructive edits to the same article by the IP 220.239.186.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which shares the same initial six digits. Coincidence? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 11:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As above; see it's been blocked for a week. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

An IP of User:Bonaparte

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but it seems that Bonnie has himself a new proxy - see here. Could you look into it? Thank you. Dahn 11:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

it seems that it was blocked just as I was posting this. So, moving on. Dahn 12:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As above; for another week or so, you may be better off getting in touch with other admins. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

AFUSCO 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.

Hello, Please pass the Smile to three people :) --AFUSCO 14:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Watchtower Sentinel

This user is messing with my user space again. He is adding content to User talk:IPSOS/Archive Aug 2007, an archive which I had deleted due to his harassment. IPSOS (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been taken care of by Bishonen. IPSOS (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks to Bish. I'll probably be rather spotty in terms of getting online, possibly for another week or so, so you may need to get in touch with someone else, until then. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

7000 edits

I just made my 7000th edit today. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 03:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there i am new and need help