User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Protection of the page German Grand Prix

Why does the disruption has to be many and recent? There has been one recent attack, and a lot earlier. It will surely come back again. I would like to be able to do other things on Wikipedia than to watch over this page, which I think I'll have to do at least a couple of times a week now since it won't get protected. The problem is, as I suppose you know, one can't ask an unlogged user directly to stop doing things like that, because you never know if it's the same user using the same IP number the next time. John Anderson 12:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. One minor edit in the last four months is not disruptive enough to lock out all unregistered editors and new accounts. It's been different people. My initial observation is that the difference between cancelled and not held is not immediately obvious. Perhaps a commented note directed at editors about the choice of the wording and directing them to the talk page could be put beside the text and a fuller explanation for the editorial decision put on the talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a note to the word and there is a comment on the talk page. People change it anyway. John Anderson 23:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I do apologise about that last comment! Schumi555 15:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem <g> -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:82.33.41.112

Hi, you may wish to take a look at User:82.33.41.112 who has reinserted the spam link identical to that added by blocked User:61.57.40.31. TerriersFan 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be infected with a trojan and on a dynamic broadband IP that probably changes every day. He'll be on a new IP before long. Just as well the article's sprotected eh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.

I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.

Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:

Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)

Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.

If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.

Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

the deleting of the page monkey wrench

why?????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldawg5.1 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to but please stop creating inappropriate pages such as Josh conley, Jcon, and Cyril lartigue. Please ask your friends to stop too. This is an encyclopaedia. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

IP block

Hi, you may wish to look at User:MatthewKeys contribs as well. After we reverted his additions on the Ash Ketchum page, the IP started vandalising our user pages. Thanks SpigotMap 02:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what the vandalism was referring to. If it's the same user (quack) he should be hit by the autoblock for a while. I think we know who to look to if it happens again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For picking up the open proxy one (the block was too short but I didn't like to shout!). Quite a spate, I've blocked quite a number over the past few days and I see you have too - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW - take a look at this too? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for reporting them. I've been noticing this vandalbot for a few weeks now, but it's really started picking up in the last few days. I made a note about it here. It seems some admins haven't noticed it. And yes, 75.16.213.37 is running an open proxy on port 80. I've reblocked it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Been hitting en wb, en wq and Commons quite a bit (when I've time I block across all of them anyway). Upside is it saves "looking" for open proxies! If you haven't & feel like it maybe vote for this, it would make the effort more productive. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clean up and the blocking

You also may want to keep an eye on User:Rgmf who appears to have a similar modus operandi and I warned earlier today after my page was blanked yesterday. Dabbler 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on my user page :D Nn123645 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection conflict

[1]. :) Acalamari 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times you check the page history, even seconds before, it's always gonna happen. At least great minds think nearly alike. 10 days is OK I presume :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, 10 days is fine; I did a week, but an extra three days won't hurt. :) Acalamari 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For protecting my user page the second time :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Globalization

Nice work out there ;-) Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

'nuther one.

I noticed you blocked 89.207.214.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Another user (or the same one) is vandalizing from 89.207.214.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), part of the same allocation. --slakr^\ talk / 10:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone else blocked that one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Malibu Film Festival

Malibu Film Festival is in name only, as none of the actual film festival takes place in Malibu. If we include MFF, it's like devoting a section to the Chevrolet Malibu or Malibu Barbie or anything with the moniker Malibu, with its name the only connection to Malibu. In fact, when I initially added a newsprint link showing the fact that the festival has no connection with Malibu since 2004, the User:Malibu Film Festival or cohort deleted it. Sonial1t6 18:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The 9th Malibu Film Festival is scheduled April 4-10, 2008 screening all films at the Malibu Cinemas and holding the awards night at Taverna Tony's. The 2008 screenings will benefit the shark fund and MHS film department. The 2007 Malibu Film Festival screened films in Santa Monica and held the Awards Night at Geoffrey's Malibu. The Lost Wave (2007) directed by Malibu resident Sam Boyer won top honors at the 2007 Malibu Film Festival. The 2006 Malibu Film Festival screened films in front of the (under construction) Malibu Cinemas, the Awards Night was held at Gladestones Malibu. "West Bank Story" by Malibu resident, Ari Sandel won top honors at Malibu Film Festival 2006 and continued on to win an Academy Award for Best Live Action Short. 76.167.94.241 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC). Thanks. -- zzuuzz

What to do about Myway89

This user, Myway89, (who also seems to be 72.187.96.201) has been making tons of unnecessary/vandal edits and reverting several editors reverts of his edits mainly: Under Pressure‎ (replacing My Chemical Romance with The Used), The Used‎ as well as Template:Ratchet & Clank series (Removing the characters section from Template:Ratchet & Clank series template). The thing is he constantly reverts anyone who reverts his edits. I am kind of surprised no one has left any warning messages on his talk page but he seems to be pretty disruptive in these articles, reverting without explaining why he thinks his edits are the right edits.

Also he has removed a AfD template from: Strung Out on The Used: The String Quartet Tribute see [2]

What is there that the editors can do? Where would I report this kind of activity? Any advice would be good. Strongsauce 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The AfD template was actually a prod, which is fine to remove. The other edits look to be in good faith, I think. Maybe some education in the MOS is needed. My suggestion would be to talk to them. I see someone has already started to talk to the IP address, and they haven't edited since. Maybe it's a good sign. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm actually after looking further I see that the user has real ownership and communication issues, is using sockpuppets, and has already been blocked multiple times for edit warring, sockpuppetry, and vandalism .. in fact is currently both blocked for a month[3] and indefinitely[4]. Noway419 (talk · contribs · block log), Myway89 (talk · contribs · block log), Thistime19 (talk · contribs · block log), Nightbird135 (talk · contribs · block log), Xotheusedguyox (talk · contribs · block log), Emsports (talk · contribs · block log), 24.92.28.8 (talk · contribs · block log), and 72.187.96.201 (talk · contribs · block log) appear to be the same user. I've blocked the IP for a while to give them time to read up on policy. Drop me a line if they return and continue in the same way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK THANK YOU!!!

REMEMBER MY NAME IS KathRUNE 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) THAT NAME AGAIN IS KATH YES KathRUNE 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) MY NAME KaThRuNe KATHY KATHY KATH KAAAAAAAAATH. I like you. my name is KATH.B., I clean for a living, it is a right barrel o' laughs!!!!! HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!!!! good ol' PAM my bezzie mate really does now have to liven thing up screaming KAAAATTTTHHHHHH!!!! KathRUNE 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello I would be grateful if you could delete this image. Image:7trgt6.JPG‎, it is a goatse image and has only been used for vandalism in articles. The sunder king 16:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok the image has been got to by another admin ;). The sunder king 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and this User:69.114.225.87 is the Ip who is adding the image. The sunder king 16:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

TheNightmareMan

I saw that you just gave this user a warning for his changes to the Intro template. Can you also take a moment to look at his page move of the article Jade plant to Chinese Takeaway Plant? This move makes no sense. I can find no reference for a Jade plant having such a name. The move looks like plain vandalism to me. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that! Bloody sneaky you are! Thanks. What is he up to? Just living up to his name, one supposes. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so. I was just considering an indef-block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Looks like a vandalism-only account. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation.

Whilst I have your attention, I would like to ask what sort of experience you might have with the creation of disambiguation pages. I am considering creating one. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Shoot. See also WP:DAB and MOS:DAB -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a disambiguation page for "The Masked Marvel". A Google search for "masked marvel" (see [5]) yields two separate Wikipedia articles (one on the Republic serial, the other a contemporary Marvel comic series). A Google search for "the masked marvel" (see [6]) yields two separate articles (one the afforementioned Republic serial, the other a comic series from the '30s). At the top of both of these articles, one finds a dab message pointing to a professtional wrestler, Luc Poirier, who uses the name The Masked Marvel. Add to this the fact that Delta blues musician Charlie Patton recorded for the Paramount label under the name The Masked Marvel (see [7]), and the Revenant boxed set which came out a few years ago very prominently uses The Masked Marvel name on the cover. It seems at least somewhat likely that someone might look for him using said name. Added all together, this seems to indicate the need for one dab page that will sort all this out. Your thoughts? Thanks for your time and attention. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting

Pablo Picasso and Francisco Goya. Cheers, JNW 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikidudeman, much appreciated. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage. Leaderofearth 03:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Log jam - part 1

Thanks for the comments yesterday. They made me think. I realised just how little I knew three months ago! So - if you have the time - take a look here and see if I've clarfied anything? Next task will be to do a similar section on logging, later today otherwise tomorrow I hope.

It could do with some work but is it better? Input/help appreciated --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page reversion

re your message: "Hello. Thank you for your report[5] at WP:AIV. For your information, the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was confusing to find a useful tip on my talk page had been reverted with no reason given. Wanderer57 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Riddlesdown High School

Thanks for helping out trying to clearn up the article. It appears former pupils are editing in negative comments about the school though.. is this allowed? --BrutusCirrus 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This is always going to happen with schools. There is nothing wrong with negative information as long as it is verifiable and neutrally reported. The same can also be said about information which is too positive. The key however is using independent reliable sources for information, and not the opinions of schoolkids themselves. See the links I added on the talk page for more details of our fundamental policies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear (series)

Hi Zzuuzz, first off thanks for taking care of Myway89.

I now have a problem involving the article, Metal Gear (series). This user 63.161.203.12 has been making and reverting to his version of the article (see history of article [8]). Essentially the gist of it is that he doesn't believe one of the games to be part of the "official canon" while there is plenty of evidence to prove that the game is 'official canon' from news sources and from an employee of the game development studio.

Here is a diff of the change he makes [9] Here is the essential discussion where most of my points are made Talk:Metal_Gear_(series)#STOP_Changing_the_Portable_Ops_info.21.21.21. Rather than repaste them into your talk page I will just link to the article's talk page.

I think he is heavily pushing his POV about what is canon to the series yet he has very weak sources of information for his points. He is also spamming his own personal website and adding that into the article. I have already warned him 3 times about the link spam but he seems to be ignoring his user talk page. I think the SPAM link is enough to get him blocked. I stopped reverting his other changes because I do not want to get into a edit war over it but I am confident that the original version before he changed it is more factually accurate than his claimed version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongsauce (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of repeat vandal template

I've cited WP:UW, which provides for the use of Template:repeatvandal for all users with repeated blocks for vandalism. I am assuming the dictionary definition of repeat (to make, do, or perform again), meaning more than one block. Can you cite a policy that provides for using another definition of repeat? Bsherr 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"perennial: recurring again and again" -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that in a Wikipedia guideline or documentation? I guess I missed it. Could you show me? Bsherr 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a dictionary definition of 'repeated'. Try also looking up repeatedly. This template is really only useful for vandals who have been blocked multiple times, not just twice. See Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Category:IP_addresses_used_for_vandalism for a discussion of how useless this template can become if it is used too liberally. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussion thread, which from my understanding talked about such a category of level-two block recipients being unuseful, but other than your own comment, didn't seem to refer to the usefulness of the template. Your link to a definition of "repeatedly" displayed the definition "several time". Respectfully, I think I'll rely on my more grammatically correct Merriam-Webster. I understand your position, but I hope you don't mind that I'm going to have to continue to rely on my interpretation of the documentation, unless you can provide something more concrete. Bsherr 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I changed out some previous user warnings for new ones is that they didn't cite specific articles. While the vandal has stopped, I wanted to provide complete documentation so that the record is clear for future warners, especially important for anonymous users. The total quantity of warnings did not change, I think. I recognize that this practice would be less appropriate for a registered user. Bsherr 01:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

this deletion

I saw you deleted this page under WP:CSD#G3. I tagged it as WP:CSD#G1 because it looked like patent nonsense to me. Sorry.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it all goes the same way. This is a recurrent vandal (see my recent contribs). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts in reverting vandalism. Your contributions are much appreciated. Imperator3733 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of large blocks of text

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I noticed that you removed the History and Timeline sections from the Riddlesdown High School page. This information was not biased or incorrect and therefore should not have been removed. This information would have been useful to potential students and their parents/guardians and so removing it constitutes vandalism. Please do not continue to edit pages in this way as it can affect the neutrality of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Ichbinbored ^talk 11:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the incorrect version being reverted. I didn't look at what the replaced text would be after the timeline section and obviously it had been present in the previous revision(s). However, I still believe that the deleted section was completely neutral and therefore should not have been deleted for that reason. Ichbinbored ^talk 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (sorry for the double edit, forgot to log in)

P.S. Thanks for blocking PatelPatel by the way. He was beginning to annoy me. Ichbinbored ^talk 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. So, the way forward... I would honestly suggest (but I would) that you revert to my version, and restore the history parts which you think are appropriate. Please note my criticisms of the unsourced opinions however, and if you could find some independent references (for example ofsted reports) it would be even better.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get started on it a bit later. Ichbinbored ^talk 07:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GMTV

what, a racial slur broadcast live on morning tv isn't controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.148.33 (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to this? Who has reported on the controversy? How much impact has it made? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Business insurance

Thoughts on the Business insurance article? I ran across it just now following the same spammer you were. It appears to have stated out as a massive copyvio cut&paste, and is now just a massive spam magnet. A large chunk of the copyvio is still there, but it's a valid topic. Stub the whole thing and start it over, or just delete? Kuru ^talk 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What a mess! With a resident spammer too. It needs a lot of work for sure, and may indeed be better off completely stubbed or deleted before rewriting. I haven't had time to look, but do we know about the copyvio? There seems to be a lot about Cyber Liability Policies for some reason. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Si. The last section on Fiduciary Liability appears to come straight from here. Employment Practices shows up here and a few others, but I can't tell on that one if it was in place before the article. What a complete mess. I'm thinking nuke the site from orbit, rather than tracking down cites for what looks like random definitions that were cut & pasted from various sources. I'll stub it and start re-adding material as I can cite. Kuru ^talk 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are bored :)

Watching stuff I came across this IP, it's listed as a "school ip" but given this I have quite a few doubts? To me this looks like an open proxy even if it is at a school, elsewhere I'd probably block it as such but it's a little early for me here! Happy to learn, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see what you mean. I've checked it but it doesn't seem to be open. The edits on Wikipedia are all school and non-proxy edits. I expect it used to be open at the start of the school year, but looks like it got fixed fairly quickly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough and appreciate the info - just looked a little odd, hope you don't mind, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way - as we share a rather unusual interest - this page may be worth a look. Because of Drini's work we at least know they are actively targeting foundation project. If you are not interested/have too much to do etc etc, apologies & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. That recent vandalbot highlighted the cross-wiki issue quite clearly. I notice that m:WikiProject on open proxies is far from active these days, and I also note the disparate attitudes to open proxies between wikis. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you are busy so don't worry about a reply. I should have said before but I frequently "found" your blocks when tracking cross wiki IP vandals and quickly worked out if it was you I could rely on it and block accordingly so thanks for the good work.

Approaches to almost everything varies cross wiki but open proxies are certainly one of the issues. Having worked on smaller wikis for a year I've tended to come up with my own "policies" in the absence of real ones! Like you - I think - I'll not block proxies where there are legit edits, others may disagree but while there are no problems with an IP it does seem unnecessary. If they finally get around to organising/implementing it global blocking will be great - doing them individually seems a bit pointless.

If I can help do let me know and in return I'll pop back from time to time and ask irritating questions :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do. I'm glad you have found my blocks useful. For what it's worth I approve of your open proxy blocks. I have voted on the cross-wiki blocking bug, for what that's worth. Let me know if there is ever a meta discussion on the issue. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of 71.2.240.178

Thanks for blocking User:71.2.240.178. Someone using this IP vandalized my userpage. NHRHS2010 talk 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of GCSE Revision link

Hi ZZuuzzz, interested to know why you deleted the GCSE Revision link on Nov13 to Lonsdale Essentials Online but left links to other commercial offerings (SAM Learning, AllHonours private tutor directory). Firstly, I must declare an interest in Essentials, although I am not a Lonsdale employee I did project manage the Essentials Online development effort, although my work on the product is now finished and I added this link purely in a personal capacity rather than as part of some actual marketing strategy in which I am not involved. I can see no actual ban on linking to commercial offerings but if there is, then I think it should be clearly stated and applied consistently. Lonsdale is one of the biggest names in GCSE Revision materials, it's a bit odd to exclude it from the list. If the policy is to only link to free resources then I understand the edit (although not some that were left in), but if so then maybe this section should be called Free Revision Resources? What do you think? I didn't want to undermine your edit so am contacting you first as I would like to understand your rationale. Cheers, Mark Maberdour (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This revision. There is a longstanding guideline about external links, which discourages links to sites which exist primarily to sell products or services, a description that seems appropriate to this site. The reason being we are primarily interested in providing free information, but also the vast number of sales sites who would like a backlink can quickly ruin an article, and some other problems associated with neutrality and conflicts of interest. I do actually remember seeing the BBC as the next link, which is normally to be welcomed, but sometimes it is not possible to perfect an article in a single edit, instead we sometimes focus on containing the most recent changes, probably the reason some commercial links were left. I notice the allhonours link is particularly useless and should definitely go, I haven't formed an opinion about SAM but that should probably go too. HTH. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Pavlina protection

Hello. Would you kindly review the discussion and references presented on the talk page? Fluffygrrl (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I had already done that. Please review the links I provided which will tell you how much weight we should afford forum posts and Google searches. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you for instance reviewed the passage that goes "Steve's passionate pursuit of personal growth began in January 1991 while sitting in a jail cell. Arrested for felony grand theft, the full weight of responsibility for his life came crashing down upon him. He realized his own decisions had put him there and that no one was going to save him. He knew his recovery wouldn't be easy, and he felt inadequate to the task. He was 19 years old." found precisely on the person's own blog ? [10]78.96.82.26 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I did. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I put this on the talk page. I'm not sure if it also belongs here. The cited passage does not state that Steve was convicted of a felony. Other materials on his site[11] indicate that he was charged with a felony, spent 3 days in jail awaiting trial, and ended up released with a misdemeanour. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 09:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Irrevenant. That is the reason I pointed to the policies about having independent sources. There seems to be a bit of a smear campaign about this chap. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection icons

Hi Zzuzz, I hadn't noticed until now that the new page protection symbol is a lock, when you protected Julianna Rose Mauriello. Are there different symbols to differentiate between semi and full protection, or is it just the one lock for all now? RainbowOfLight ^Talk 00:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There is {{pp-protected}} for full protection and {{pp-semi-protected}} for semi, and there are small versions of each. There is difference in the wording (or tooltip) and the colour. The full or semi templates depend on the nature of the protection, in this case semi, but the choice of whether it's small or not is up to the protecting admin (or for that matter anyone else). Some find that the big templates are ugly and distracting, some find that the small lock icons are too discreet and uninformative. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks keep my feet warm, if nothing else...

Hey Zzuuzz! I didn't know you'd done that request last summer, lol. I filed the Checkuser case tonight for the newest spurt on the Guy Sebastian articles, after compiling some initial evidence, and the case found all those new ones, so the underlying IP was blocked. We tagged all the accounts after checking to see which was the oldest, to know who was puppetmaster. That's interesting to know it spilled over into other areas back in August, I do recall seeing your name on the talk page of a couple. The accounts Alison found were created in spurts, with 5-6 accounts created on a single day, as sleepers, and to evade blocks. I tried to go forward in the history for that IP CU, but did not find the result, was the checkuser done for that IP, do you remember? Ariel♥Gold 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The result was as cryptic as ever. In my opinion they were all the same user, and I think I got all of them (though obviously missed at least one block). I distinctly remember several dynamic IP ranges were also involved, and I put it down to Australian schools and ISPs, which are notoriously dynamic. You could check the article histories and also VoA's block log at that time if you were interested. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess sometimes there just isn't much that can be done, especially if it is a university or school IP, but at least you can stop things for a while, protect the articles (the three hit hard today were protected for 5 hours), and block them as they come up. And, at the very least, now there is a permanent record of the various names, along with the underlying IPs, so more names could always be added to the checkuser case if needed. You did a ton of work with that IP check back in August, lol. I just gathered all the IPs that were blocked, they are all in a very narrow range, except for one, so it would be easy to apply a short term range block in the future if needed. Thanks again for letting me see that case! Ariel♥Gold 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A bad papercut

Thanks for the help with Papertaster! StephenBuxton (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Any time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for the user talkpage revert. It was greatly appreciated :D AngelOfSadness talk 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are of course welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OPs

I wonder if you could let me in on how you check for OPs. I generally monitor WP:OP and block what's listed, but I'd like to check ones that come across my radar myself. I have nmap installed and functional, though I'm not clear on how the results should be interpreted and/or if something further is required to determine if it's open. Thanks for any help. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike. There are lots of different ways, and lots of different types of open proxy, but there is no substitute for connecting through the proxy and previewing a signature. The definition of an open proxy is that anyone can use it to edit. You may want to focus on how to do that. I don't mean to sound vague, beyond this basic element it is quite a broad topic. One word of advice is that if Nmap detects any service running on port 3128 or port 8080 (etc) it will call it an open proxy because that is what is normally hosted on these ports, but it could be a web server or a closed proxy or anything else, and not necessarily an open proxy. I've been meaning to write up some instructions for admins, in the meantime there is Checking open proxies, which is probably not very helpful right now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. m:User:Az1568 helped me out a bit; I'm good to go. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That IP

I think it is open (89.96.174.126) and likely this one as well. Thanks for the block, cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbythyme (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I should get the block in while investigating it further :) Looks like zombies at first sight. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Thanks for your support, especially the comment "courteous to even the most hideous of spammers" -- you don't know how hard that is for me sometimes. it's a good thing new admins don't get a Taser button.
--A. B. ^(talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine :) They didn't show you that button yet? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Words of wisdom?

I'm bumping into a few ips that are listed as Open proxies on here, are vandalising but are "educational establishments" such as this. What is the policy/practice here with such ips? Hope you don't mind & cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never looked into the details of what sources OPD uses, but have concluded that it's usually only worth checking for open proxies on the ones which are highlighted with the darkest shade of orange. 70.143.27.101 is white because it was last detected on 26-9-2007, which is quite some time ago in open proxy terms (see our discussion above). In fact if you search Google you can see it was probably used briefly as an open proxy on 24 Sept, and OPD tells us it last scanned positive on the 26th. It is not uncommon for schools to leave proxies open. In such cases what I do is to confirm which port is open, mark this clearly in the block log, and sometimes (if inclined) email the school to let them know they have a problem. I am of the opinion (and this is probably policy) that only confirmed open proxies should be blocked as such (see the #OPs thread just above). Schools are frequently blocked for vandalism but they are usually softblocks (usually AO/ACB). In this particular case, since an OP is not present, it should be treated just like any other school. Schoolblocks are normally of increasing length up to about a year (or the end of the school year). I prefer to see no good edits or a significant amount of vandalism before applying the lengthy block. You may want to peruse my logs or the history of AIV for some examples. This particular IP would probably get a few days or a week on this occasion, a month the next time, maybe three after that, then to the end of the year, with a few shorter blocks thrown in in the meantime. Consensus would indicate that repeatedly warning the schools is not really effective, and they should be judged on the probability of vandalism as their next edit. Universities should be treated differently from more junior schools because they can contribute some good stuff. You may want to see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive83#Netsnipe.27s_6_Month_School_Blocks for some aspects of previous discussions. But it is important to separate the issue of open proxies from schools. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that is what I call helpful. Thanks for taking the time, it is appreciated & maybe my efforts can be more constructive. I'll dig a bit more rather than taking face value quite so readily. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User 64.62.138.34 requesting unblock

You blocked as an open proxy, and now they are requesting unblock on several technical grounds which I'm not competent enough to fully understand (one which I do being that they are de facto static IP even though they signed up for dynamic). In addition it seems like their native language is not English. Can you take a look? Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems Luna got there first. I had previously left a convenient link on the talk page[12], in case you're wondering what a (blocked) open proxy looks like. I've since added some more comments. Unfortunately this proxy kept breaking any page containing the word 'location'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

207.63.238.4

I happened to come across old edits by 207.63.238.4 (talk · contribs) and saw that you blocked the IP as a open proxy and/or zombie computer. Yet it is registered to Illinois Century Network, a school/government network, which normally gets temporary anonymous blocking only. I don't mean to sound like I'm complaining - just curious more than anything. Deli nk (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the IP is running an open proxy on port 8080, which means that anyone anywhere in the world can edit with this IP. I have been in email contact with their tech guy to let them know they have a problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured there was more than what I understood. Thanks for explaining it! Deli nk (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

capital letters

ok, i thought a title is suppose to have all capital letters, i didnt realize that wasnt the case on here, sry, if i get confused about it, i guess i can just ask you for help. Usedfan1989 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

??

does the "s" in b-side get a capital letter? Usedfan1989 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks

alirght, thanks for the help, i was a little confused about the titles and names but i think i got it down now and i went back and corrected my mistakes with capital letters and all the others i noted on some of the used pages so i think everything is good and how it should be now. Usedfan1989 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

i apologize if i just messed up your page but would you please inform me (on my talk page) of how to link my name to my comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock427 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply add four tildes to the end of your comments, like ~~~~. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of 204.11.191.49

You recently blocked the IP adress 204.11.191.49 as an open proxy. I wouldn't have a problem with this, but it prevents me from editing even when logged in on this account. At the moment, I am on the blocked computer now (a school computer, hence the use of my public sock), but cannot edit on teh mainspace at all. I would appreciate it if you looked into this. Thanks! Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it is no longer an open proxy, so it has been unblocked. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the unblock. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Prot

Feel free to undo it but it seems a bit pointless :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)