Luna Santin
| Talk – Sandbox – Blog |
|
Welcome to my talk page! I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here.
|
LA's userbox consolidation discussion; a side project I occassionally help out with, to reduce the number of superfluous userboxes.
Redirecting alternate spellings of the same word
I have written an article about a traditional African house called a rondavel. The problem is that there are many different spellings of this type of housing including 'rondeval' and 'roundeval' and 'roundavel'. I was wondering how to redirect misspelled search quires to the correct article. Jeff.t.mcdonald 16:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
User page revert
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Best, Gwernol 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia proposed deletion
Hello Luna,
Thank you for your response. As you can probably see, I am very new to this. I submitted an article to Wikipedia because when I searched for a topic (Spanish Thief Pouter), it wasn't there. I submitted my article and now it has a proposed deletion thingy on it, and I'm not sure what to do next. Please can you advise me? Many thanks, GraemeGlassfeather 20:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and assistance Glassfeather 22:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
RE: userpage vandalism revert
Thanks much for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- And thanks again. I guess someone really doesn't like me! --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, too, for the vandal revert. --Mmx1 15:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You were one of the administrators that have reviewed YBO's request for unblocking. This user is now engaging in rather bizarre rants on his own talk page. Is it acceptable for a user to put patent nonsense on his own talk page? BigE1977 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OUTRAGE
I did not write about myself. You are totally way off base. I disclosed my bias and added PA's side. There is not one word in this article giving the other side.
The WASHINGTON POST article allows PA people to comment what makes me different? I would be wrong if I made a comment without disclosing my bias. You handled this in a TOTALLY UNPROFESSIONAL way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edward Saint-Ivan (talk • contribs) 18 September 2006.
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I appreciate it. Amphytrite 00:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked.
Hello. My username is Blondlieut. When I sign in from AOL, I am blocked. When I sign in from anywhere else, I am not blocked. It appears as if you have blocked anyone and everyone who uses Wikipedia from AOL. I have now signed in from Firefox and have no problem. :)
I'm not sure why; I'm certain you have good reasons. I'm certain someone was doing something un-good who has signed in from AOL (I saw a specific username pop up when I saw that my IP address-- the general AOL address-- was blocked). But perhaps there is a less onerous, less drastic way to go about doing what you're doing, rather than blocking everyone who happens to take a peak at Wikipedia who happens to be on AOL at the same time. That might apply to, oh I don't know, one or two folks who aren't the individual you are seeking to block.
Thank you so much for your attention to this matter.
Richard Hurst Blondlieut [email protected] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blondlieut (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
My talk page
Thanks. I never even saw that. It's usually the user page. I must have deleted something dear to them. Are you going to indefinite block them or shall I? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- And they are blocked. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Stormfront content dispute and vandalism allegations
Luna, I noticed you just denied that my recent edit was vandalism. Could you maybe help explain to Stick to the Facts where he's going wrong in his understanding of that term and the related policies? He's issued repeated vandalism warnings to several users in the little bit as a result of the on-going content dispute. I've tried to explain why our edits aren't vandalism, but we haven't had much luck in successfully communicating that to him. I imagine that as he's a little hesistant to accept our word for things, seeing as how we're on the other side of content dispute (and thereby find ourselves in the unenviable task of removing his criticisms of a racist, neo-nazi hate site). I suspect if I got into a debate with someone defending a neo-nazi hate site, I'd have a pretty hard time trusting them too!
So, if you're not busy, could you help clarify the term for him, since you've looked the edit over?
--Alecmconroy 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Alecmconroy - he and UberCryxic have been tag-teaming me and agreeing to take turns scrapping my content to avoid the 3RR. This is a form of sock puppetry, I believe. Their talk pages show messages between them discussing it.
I have not recruited nor will I recruit other people to help me out because it is against policy and I don't need to. At the same time, I think these people need to have it explained to them that just because 3 people disagree with one person, they do not win, particularly when that one person has a fact with 11 cites and there is no argument against it. Stick to the Facts 09:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply on my talk page. Unfortunately they are unwilling to accept the sentence in any form, even after I addressed all of their concerns. I now realize that their real concern with it is that they don't want the fact to be on display, but I'm not aware that is grounds for removal under the wikipedia guidelines.
I'll take the next step and try to get it resolved, lets see. In the meanwhile - and I ask this will all due respect - would you kindly ask them not to take up their 3RR type complaints with you directly, but rather to have them go through the normal process like everyone else? I believe that constitutes forum shopping - not that I'm suggesting that you are biased or anything, it just doesn't look good to an outsider, etc. Thanks, Stick to the Facts 09:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Luna-- thanks for your comment. Since I have you here, let me ask you something I've been puzzled about myself. Someone's repeatedly editing against consensus. They've got 3 reversions, you have 0-1, and there's been LOT of talk about the situation. SHOULD you edit war to the point to push them over 3, so that the community can impose limits on them, via the 3RR? Or should you just refuse to edit war yourself and leave the against-consensus content in?
- It's a question I've wondered since long before this recent dispute came up. I mean, if you do revert, you're contributing to an edit war. If you don't revert, you're just leaving the mess for someone else to clean up, and you're making it harder for people to learn that repeated against-consensus edits are inappropriate.
- Probably more of a village pump question,but, since i've bugged you enough tonight, I thought I'd bug you again to ask your thoughts-- not on this specific dispute really, as much as the in-general. Thanks for helping out.
- --Alecmconroy 09:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)