User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 16

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.

Krabs

User_talk:Zzuuzz/Archive_15#Krab_sock_pops_back -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting A Christmas Carol.

I am so pleased you did this. I don't know how to go about this. I did check the discussion pages, but although it was raised as a topic, a while ago, nothing was done. Thank you for providing the protection this site really needs. Proxxt (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was following a request made here. I notice it's been protected on almost the same date for three years in a row. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your block of user:TheGnomeKing

Hi zzuuzz. Would you mind to take another look at this [1] account? I just placed a comment [2] and you might have missed user:Ferrylodge's last comment(s) [3]. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a request for an indef-block? I have a question for you to think about - what length of block is most likely to work, six months or indefinite? Report them straight to AIV, or here, if they come back and vandalise. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ops. I should've taken a look at the block log before commenting on a block that looked more like the short kind (hours or days). You did indeed already block appropriate and I apologize for this little disruption.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your block of 91.121.181.91

I am just curious of your block of 91.121.181.91 (talk · contribs) for 6 months...I normally dont see such a long block for IP addresses. I see that the IP also just had one edit.-- Tinu Cherian - 09:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This IP is a Tor proxy (srv1torcomovh) and was blocked in light of Wikipedia:Open proxies. It also appears to be a static IP belonging to a hosting server (srv1.fatrasie.com), and could possibly have been blocked longer. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request: Unblock/Unwhitelist .sixxs.org / IPv6Gate as the editing has been resolved

Hi, can you unblock/unblacklist .sixxs.org based urls as [[IPv6Gate] has been fixed to not append .sixxs.org anymore inside textareas. When this is unblocked I can fix the IPv6Gate article with the correct URLs. Sidenote with .sixxs.org of course is that actually, one would have to check for www.blacklisted.com.sixxs.org + www.blacklisted.com.ipv4.sixxs.org + www.blacklisted.com.ipv6.sixxs.org, for realblacklisted items, otherwise it could be used to avoid blacklisted domains....

Note that I moved the talk pages for the IPv4 IP's of the instances to Talk:IPv6Gate to aggregate the problem reports in one location. As the selection of the exit is random anyway, if it happens on one of them it will also happen on the others.

Jeroen (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeroen. The url has apparently been blacklisted at meta:Spam blacklist, you will have to ask on the talk page there, or ask the person who added it directly at meta:User talk:Mike.lifeguard and fill him in on the background. You can do us a favour by checking the links here, and cleaning up as appropriate. The block on the IP 213.197.27.252 (talk · contribs · block log) is due to expire soon, but I have no problem if you want it unblocked any earlier. Just ask any admin or take a look at using {{adminhelp}} and someone should be able to help. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed up the few of the .sixxs.org entries in real articles/talk pages, the remaining ones are all in archival pages. I've requested unblocking and also made a comment that maybe they should note a link to the decision making there on the user pages and/or report directly to the abuse address (that would have made me catch it earlier :) but oh well. As for the block, those 3 days don't hurt anyone. Thanks for your help. Jeroen (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

..for the revert. I didn't know spamming got to the point of using people's talk pages now. -Jrcla2 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. This guy will spam anywhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are a worthless Mothwhore.

Hi zzuzzz, Thanks for ruining our children's education by blocking the article on Mothpeople. You have done Mothciety and our society a huge disservice. Eat some large steaming Mothfaeces. Love Jamie Wiltshire

Mothballs! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. You acted before I'd even managed to request assistance.[4] Cheers. The Parting Glass (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

QED

Why do you keep removing information related to Quality Education by Design? I added the info to the list of companies with the acronym "QED" on the disambiguation page for a rather self-explanatory reason - they are a company with the initials QED!! I'm fine with not having a wiki page for the company, that I understand (though I think it is rather borderline in terms of the guidelines set forth by wiki for what should and shouldn't be submitted). However, to remove this from the disambiguation page is biased. There are a number of other companies listed there that meet the guidelines just as much as QED does.

Secondly, the link at the bottom of the homeschool wiki page is clearly relevant. QED is a service that provides references to tutors who may homeschool individuals. It is equally as acceptable as the Home Education Network of Victoria, Australia & Home Education Foundation, New Zealand, which provides homeschooling info to individuals. Furthermore, it is clearly more acceptable than the MooreFoundation.org which, although it is a .org website, is just a front for a .com address that provides tutoring services for a fee. I request that you either include my QED link in this list or you remove the moorefoundation link, as they are identical services and by leaving only one of them up there you would essentially be violating the wiki rules.

Thanks and please let me know if there are any further issues.

Benicillin (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Ben

Hello. In response to your first point, disambiguation pages serve to disambiguate encyclopaedia articles. It is not a list of companies, but a list of articles, and as you and others have pointed out, your company is unlikely to have an article. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more information. Secondly, the links at the bottom of the homeschooling page are not a list of relevant companies providing services related to the topic, but extensions of the information available in the article. Your link merely extolls the apparent virtue of your services and solicits money from the reader. The Moore Foundation link appears to exist as the topic is discussed at some length in the article in the context of their role in the history of homeschooling. It is fairly normal to do this, though you can remove the link if you think it's inappropriate. See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for more information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

Thank you for helping clean up after the page move vandal. --Aude (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking IP addresses

I'm curious why my IP address is blocked to non-accounts. I often don't bother to log in for simple questions on Talk pages, but am now informed that "Zzuuzz" disallows this! As you see I *do* have an account and indeed, James Dow Allen is the name on my birth certificate, etc. How about you? Is Zzuuzz a surname or forename? You may choose to respond to me by email; my account name at gmail.com is jamesdowallen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdowallen (talk • contribs) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in telling me what your IP address is, so we can review its contributions together and look for the reasons for any blocks. zzuuzz is a username. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I use Internet cafes,know nothing about IP address assignment, forgot to copy down the IP address displayed yesterday. I'm using the exact same machine as yesterday but, as you can see, am not now being blocked. Sorry if my tone was curt. I've never abused Wikipedia and was disconcerted to see the block, with no explanation beyond "Zzuuzz chose to block you." James Dow Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.41.152 (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You evidently have a different IP address today. You appear to have been probably affected by one of the blocks used to prevent this user vandalising 20 different high profile articles five times a day, every day. I would apologise but it's not really my fault - I'm trying to keep the blocks to the minimum required to stop such defacement. You can avoid the blocks, when you're affected by them, by using your account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

i am ever so grateful for you defending my talk pages from the abusive user who used proxies, to vandalise and insult, and i apologise for the loss of temper at the agressor, i have been polite and unfortunately he won't lhisten to my reasoning. i finally lost my nerve, which i now regret, but thanks again for banning the user and his proxies and sockpuppets Btzkillerv (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti Manchu Nationalist is another sockpuppet, please ban him Btzkillerv (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Block me???

Why do you block me men ??? are you crazy?? im not "bot" or wethever you think.. just cuz im contributing much in wkipedia, you block me!! sorry, but I DONT GET IT!!!--Venerock (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I haven't blocked the account you're using. Did you have another one? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref problem

Hi, there seems to be a problem with the ref template system. Please view this article British Bangladeshi, after 30 ref links, it breaks down. Please fix this, thanks! Mohsin (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Znette's a sock

Hey! I see you blocked Znette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a "disruptive sockpuppet". Who's the master account? I've got a bad feeling this won't be the last block issued for actions at Drake Circus, and I want to know who the parent account is, rather than pointing to Znette as the puppeteer. —C.Fred (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. To be honest I don't know and am not sure if I really care. There were edits from 86.153.168.201 (talk · contribs) (a regular on the talk pages) at almost exactly the same time, and equally there are also some people who are determined to redirect the Drake Circus article. There have been some previous spam Joe Jobs, which are mentioned in the history of the talk page of the shopping centre article. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mike-Jones-at-dc. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of CIA attribution templates

Nine CIA attribution templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for helping keep an eye out for vandalism on the rabies article. It and the ones on the various vampire bats seem to attract an unusually high number of silly vandals. It is truly boring - I find I need to check them every day. Maybe we should try to get them semi-protected? What do you think? If so, do you know how to go about it? Many thanks once again, sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I would say the rabies and vampire bat articles are both a bit borderline. There tends to be some constructive edits to the rabies article from new editors and passing unregistered experts from time to time, and the rate of vandalism to the vampire bat article is also a bit lower than would normally be expected for semi-protection. I also notice (to my surprise) that neither article has ever been semi-protected. But you're right the vandalism is relentless. I would give the rabies article about even odds at WP:RFPP if you're inclined to request protection there, or I may be persuaded to give it a vandalism break after the next batch of it. I'll keep an eye on the vampire bat article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your advice - will keep checking them and contact you again if things continue. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proxy ranges

Hi Zzuuzz. I'm wondering if you're experienced using robtex and other tools to find proxy registered routes. FDCservers for example. See this for example. Now I'm pretty sure blocking all of those would be just wrong, as those ranges seems to be used by ISPs. Do you know a way to find out whether it's some dedicated webhost range, or just a proxy registered range by Verizion for it's customers? It's not quite easy to explain my question, but I hope you understand what I mean. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kanonkas. Though the routing lists can help to find hosting ranges (mainly by looking through their names, their contributions, and google), I don't think there's a quick and reliable way of doing it. You'd expect large hosting companies to route a fair amount of non-hosted traffic. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind checking this? Might help you a bit. I found the range while checking these contribs. --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Runtshit and dreamhost, now there's a combination worth blocking. I thought dreamhost ranges were already blocked fairly extensively, but as always there's the occasional legit VPN, corporate gateway, etc on their networks. Having said that, I haven't yet seen any legit edits in their contributions. Are you planning to block them all? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving that up to your discretion. --Kanonkas :  Talk  11:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ALICIA KEYS.......

ALICIA KEYS VOICE TYPE AND OCTAVES.. Hello i wanna know if you can edited alicia keys voice type it says contralto she a dramatic mezzo soprano like Aretha Franklin, and her octaves are 3.6 to be exact so do me this favor...Darksorrow54 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The New York Daily News seems to say contralto. Do you have a different source? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Alicia keys voice type" there alot of sources that says she a contralto, i measure her voice with the piano in a song she sing at the yamaha convention 09 in that song is how come you don't call me anymore and it shows her range.so go to youtube go to my youtube account it`s darksorrow54, go to my favorite videos, so please change her voice to dramatic mezzo soprano and please put her octaves to 3.5. can you please edit that cuss thats important, her range is Bb2-Ff6 (Darksorrow54 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. You can always change it yourself if you can't convince me, though it may get reverted if you can't produce a verifiable source. You only need to make one more edit before you can edit the page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Edinburgh Academy protected

Dear Zzuuzz,

I see that you have protected the Edinburgh Academy wikipedia page, and given me a final warning.

I am very confused? I didn't vandalise the page - I highlighted the fame the Academy had achieved in producing 2 respected authors. It certainly belonged in the inroduction - it is the most well known fact about that school.

I think it's important that it remains in the way that I changed it.

I suggest you put back my edit, and remove my warning,

Thanks

Sorry - I don't understand how to "sign" this message, but hopefully you can work out who I am? I will check this page for a response.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.54.244 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Please provide a reliable source to support your edits. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response. I will do my very best to find a reliable source. But can you remove my final warning please? I certainly wasn't trying to vandalise... Thanks

Move request

Hello, is it possible for you to move Extreme Rules (2009) to WWE Extreme Rules? Per WP:NCNUM, only when there have been multiple instances of an event should it have a quantifier. Thanks.--₮RUCӨ 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirects, you can now move it yourself -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--₮RUCӨ 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock of 174.133.0.0/16

Just a heads up, that affected User:SineBot. That said, there's really no reason anyone should be editing from that range, since they're all dedicated/colocated servers. :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, no action required, already ipbe'd it :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, occupational hazard I guess. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why was this range blocked? Why are we blocking ranges from which there is no abuse? Bastique ^demandez 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Schools

I keep uploading information about the currenet head master of eltham college school,but it keeps on being taken down..why?? and also i know the info because i ama an x pupil!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Info.on.schools (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

206.107.96.242 vandalism pattern

Odd, this one. The whois looks like it's a dynamic IP (at least it doesn't say it's in a pool of static IPs) in 206.104.0.0/14 , yet every time a block expires, even after some months, vandalism of the same pattern re-starts almost immediately. Either someone's leaving their router on without ever rebooting it for years, or this is a static, would you say? Tonywalton ^Talk 17:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would wager a fair price that it's a static North Carolina school IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Or a dynamic IP assigned to a router that was set up three years ago by a teacher who's since retired and nobody else has dared touch it since. Next time they have a power outage, that's them off the Net ☺... Tonywalton ^Talk 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:151.199.196.98

This user is requesting unblocking based on a {{schoolblock}} rangeblock you placed [5]. I did a whois on this specific IP and it just came back as Verizon. Are you sure this IP belongs to a school? It seems strange to me for a school to have so many IP addresses. Mangojuice^talk 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See also[6]. It's definitely a Henrico County Public Schools IP (client-151-199-196-98.henrico.k12.va.us), see the rDNS at the top of the whois result[7], and the carcrash of edits[8]. They have at least three /24 ranges 195, 196, and 197 which I've blocked. You are welcome to remove the range block(s) as you see fit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a favor, please

96.30.0.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Can you please review and make sure I blocked this correctly? I have no idea if it's an open proxy, but I've noticed many/most of his IPs are, so it seemed like a safe assumption to make. Please modify the block if needed, and thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep this one, good block. Here's a simple duck test, apart from it being runtshit of course: google search[9] shows some hosting activity; whois[10] belongs to a hosting company; IP opens cPanel page in a browser[11]. I'll have a look to see if there's a range block to be had. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: speedy keep on deletion debate

It can't be right to close a debate just because you say it should be closed... Isn't it supposed to be about consensus... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Common sense takes priority over process in this case. See also WP:N and WP:SNOW. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thunder24w

Why are you deleting my shit son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunder24w (talk • contribs)

Hello. Do you mean this shit last year? I would hope it'd be obvious. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

uw-warn*

Hello Zzuuzz, thank you for reverting vandalism. When you add a user-warning notification, please could you also try to add the article name involved. This allows other editors to easily know if that user has already been warned in relation to a particular incident of vandalism, without needing to check the edit history and time-stamps involved. An example of how to do this would be {{subst:uw-vand1|Nottingham Bluecoat School}}. Many appreciations for your work against vandalism, —Sladen (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I note your request, however experience over the last few years indicate this is unlikely to happen. Timestamps should always be looked at; this is for instance useful when there are multiple vandalisms to the same article, or vandalism over several articles. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IP Sockpuppets

Thanks for blocking 74.208.122.65, but it seems like he/she uses multiple IP addresses. If you notice, all of these addresses have the same style of vandalism. If you block one, another will pop up - is there any way to stop this? 67.215.232.114 216.108.235.72 85.17.146.194. Thanks. GoCuse44 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

They are all open proxies. It's very difficult to prevent someone using open proxies, though all these IPs are now blocked and in most cases rangeblocked, which means it's getting harder all the time to find unblocked IPs. Semi-protection can sometimes work, as can (in some cases) adjusting content. I've only recently come across this vandal so I'm not really sure what they're trying to achieve. Just say if you want your userpage semi-protected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection for my page would be great. I'd really appreciate that. GoCuse44 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for semi-protecting my userpage! GoCuse44 (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A non-admin allowed to block?

I apologize for likely doing this incorrectly - I'm not so good with the links and such....but User Bob loves Grib is posting to another user that they are permanently blocked for abusing him and his editing. This comes from someone who was recently blocked themselves. I thought perhaps you could look into this, and if you are able, make sure this is dealt with properly. Thank you. TristaBella (not allowed to log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Bob Loves Grib (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours a few days ago, but hasn't edited since, and no one has posted to his talk page since. Maybe this was before he was blocked, and in fact part of the reason for the block? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Zzuuzz. I am getting increasingly frustrated with vandals who get little or no punishment as well as new users and anons who continue to mess up Wikipedia and rarely ar dealt with. Look at the soap opera type speculation with Lindsay Monroe and Danny Messer on CSI: New York. I have fixed those pages quite a few times. It is nice to see somebody DOES deal with some of the idiots. Thank you again. TristaBella 24.176.191.234 (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Correcting my userpage's name

zzuuzz, thanks for correcting my userpage's name that was changed on "13:48, 27 March 2009 The Wandering Traveler (talk | contribs) m (3,011 bytes) (moved User:Timlight to User:Calliopejen2)" Timlight (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding biographical headers to fictional characters

I stopped it. Please provide me some links to find the source of the problem. You could stop the bot immediately by editing its talk page as instructed in User:Yobot. Thanks for reporting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Problem found Category:Arthurian characters is under Category:6th-century rulers. Yobot went into subcategories of Category:6th-century rulers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

how dare you

how dare you change my article, you know absolutly nout abot about samuel whitbread i sgould know i attend the blaady scholl, you are an absolute shambles. Zzuuzz YOUR FIRED!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir allen (talk • contribs)

Take heed,[12] sirrah; the whip. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Hopiakuta

I'm curious, what is this all about? Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just perusing the history and my, erm, mouse lost control. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel better now? Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking if my mouse is fixed, or something else? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proxy range block, possible collateral damage, you're call

See User talk:Cubbieco. Since its your block, and I am not much help with proxies myself, I'll leave it up to you... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, block adjusted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Torrisholme

I see that I stumbled upon a bigger mess than I realized. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong there :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

User:CSInewyork and User:CSI Miami Vegas NY appear to be the same person. They have both changed Lindsay Monroe to Lindsay Messer in CSI: New York and indulged in Wiki-fictioning various pages and speculations on all the CSI pages. IPs Users66.191.84.6 , 89.29.95.137 , and 86.130.171.79 have all changed Lindsay's name, too - but may be totally unrelated. If you can check into it, I would be appreciative - I know you are busy. Thank you! TristaBella (unable to login at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The IPs are unrelated, one is a Charter Comm, one's a Czech carrier and the last is BTInternet in the UK. 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look like anything to be particularly concerned about. They look like probably different users. Unfortunately TV episodes get a lot of users speculating. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Add another one

Random IP - same pattern of edits. Special:Contributions/96.31.69.231. GoCuse44 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[13]. It seems to be this vandal btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your block of 85.17.0.0/16 (Leaseweb.com)

This range belongs to leaseweb.com, one of Wikimedia's Amsterdam transit providers. I'm not sure why this block is in place, but they contacted us, complaining about it. There are no contributions, presently, from this range. Bastique ^demandez 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a relatively large number of open and anonymising proxies throughout this range, examples:

• 85.17.146.194 (talk · contribs) (unblockmyfriends.com)
• 85.17.231.67 (talk · contribs)
• 85.17.199.89 (talk · contribs) (xx7.nl)
• 85.17.45.118 (talk · contribs) (proxy.criticalsecurity.net)
• 85.17.213.130 (talk · contribs) (how-to-hide-ip.info)
• 85.17.116.169 (talk · contribs) (Tor exit node NOPC)
• 85.17.137.41 (talk · contribs)
• 85.17.87.165 (talk · contribs)
• 85.17.58.183 (talk · contribs)
• [14]
• ...

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be sure to block the ranges specific IPs or smaller ranges. This provider is not itself a range anonymiser, and there are a large number of valid users in that range. I'm sincerely sorry if this is extra work, and I've unblocked the range. Bastique ^demandez 17:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks...

...for that revert on my talk. He was going too fast for me. See ya 'round Tiderolls 23:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Sorry about the last protection. Feel free to put your indefinite semi-protection back. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I did the same to one of your blocks earlier today[15] :) I think this template is transcluded widely enough to warrant the indef, so I'll restore it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Page move war.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

John Fisher

I can't find a way to link to the OSA reports - they are .doc downloads on their site, and even the search result page which lists them seems to be unlinkable - do you have any ideas? The Croydon Guardian archive hasn't got a great search engine, and the online articles seem sometimes to have different dates & titles from the print edition, which doesn't help. DuncanHill (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I had the same problem. The best link I have, apart from the Word files, is[16]. I have yet to see anything from the Croydon Guardian, but I am prepared to accept a balanced cite of the interviews, in conjunction with the previous ofsted report. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And it'll probably be a couple of days before I get around to tackling this, but if you're around the more input the better. I don't see the admissions part as being particularly controversial, though the actual basis for admissions could do with some expansion to put it in context, but the 'reputation for violence' bit really needs sorting out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look over the next day or two to see if I can find anything helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear zzuuzz, I was disappointed that you implied my addition of breathless (band) , being unverifiable at present, was damaging to wikipedia. It seems to me after the padlock symbol is removed it will just all start up again, and the referenced material about the bullying atmosphere at the school ,and some, but not others, - why do some have to be refernced according to IP but not others? - of the former pupils will just get deleted again by an IP that you seem to support. Since one of my sisters lives near Croydon if I troubled her to try and get a look at the copy of the paper that had the interview with the former pupils who criticised the atmosphere - what then. Would something be done to block the constant eraser of that bit of the article? It is refernced and its constant deletion seems like vandalism to me but I am new to wikipedia so maybe I don't understand right what constitutes vandalism. Sayerslle (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sayerslle. I wouldn't describe your addition as damaging, but it is unverifiable. Verifiability is a long established policy which has overwhelming consensus from the Wikipedia community. As I mentioned before the alumni should all be referenced somewhere and there is nothing wrong with removing the unreferenced ones. Though some effort should be made to provide references if they exist. Removing unsourced unlinked alumni is done all the time. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Alumni for more information. It would be incredibly helpful if someone can get a copy of this article, then we can evaluate what it says, and perhaps more importantly get independent confirmation that it even exists. This summary of it is being constantly added by an editor whose previous edits were found to be lacking in accuracy and objectivity, and who has done virtually nothing on Wikipedia but constantly reinsert it. It seriously needs another view. But that it not the main problem - As I've also mentioned, this paragraph does not represent the neutral point of view, and falls short of Wikipedia's NPOV policy in several respects. Removing the paragraph is to vandalism as constantly adding it without balance is to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Both are equally not good. I've outlined on the talk page what I think will be needed to balance the content. Once it is policy-compliant and represents the neutral point of view, only then if it is constantly removed should it be considered potentially vandalism. At the moment, whether it is recognised by the participants or not, the article is suffering from a NPOV dispute. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But what does 'independent confirmation that it exists' entail? or require, if you get what I mean? I don't agree that it demands another point of view. If some former pupils say they had a bad time, that can perfectly well stand as a testimony of their experience and should stand as a witness of their experience of the school. Others can add to that, give counter testimony, but I believe it is vandalism to achieve 'balance' by simply erasing it time after time. If no-one chooses to say the atmosphere was great, according to your 'neutrality' then no-one was ever bullied either. After the padlock goes this will start again, I personally am with Marlon 232 - that would change of course if having seen the article it wasnt as stated - but in the meantime as I see it , if it seriously needs another view, then those with positive experience or reports of the school should insert them alongside the negative, and until then leave the reality of anothers experience of the school alone. If they don't they are vandals because they're saying ' no criticism of the school unless its on our terms' 'if we stay silent about the schools quality we simultaneously will silence you'. That's not neutrality zzuuzz, thats censorship. Sayerslle (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You should re-read Wikipedia:Vandalism. I am not saying that it should be removed, but that to leave it in without representing the other views is not a NPOV. NPOV "requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Firstly, it doesn't represent all published views of the claims of bullying. Importantly the Ofsted report discusses it, and they have something different to say. Additionally, we don't know what else was said in the article in question. These claims may have been refuted comprehensively by the reporter, or the school admin, or by others in the article itself. We are only seeing two cherry-picked quotes chosen by a biased editor. Secondly this is only one view of the atmosphere at the school. The Ofsted report from 2004 has extensive discussion of the discipline, and I know you don't like local authorities but Ofsted don't miss too many tricks, and they can be considered a reliable source. No doubt there are other published reports. Thirdly the article doesn't mention discipline at the school in the present day. Balance is not about removing biased content, though that's one way to do it, it's about representing all published views. All reports of this which could be seen as favourable are notable in their omission; the article is severely lacking in this respect. As I've said repeatedly, the article needs additions to balance it out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

'Firstly it doesn't represent all published views..' But it isn't trying to. It is saying some ex-pupils said they experienced a bullying atmosphere.' That's it. Finish. A reality of those students who say it was so for them. It is entire unto itself. 'We are only seeing two cherry picked quotes chosen by a biased editor' Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the whole article said the school was terrible for the pupils interviewed. Other experiences also existed, no doubt. Well fine. But nothing can obliterate that testimony which is whole in itself. To kick it in because it annoys you, but why? is vandalism. As you say repeatedly the article needs additions to balance it out. So , if you add them when the padlock goes, the bits from the Ofsted report, that will hopefully be that. A bad paragraph can be made better, but ip wants an empty paragraph and thats what makes me mad. I won't add any more because I know Im getting boring on this. Sayerslle (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with my account.

TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding with the template etc

Won't happen again! dottydotdot (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek nationalism

FYI :). I hope he gets bored fast enough... -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just about to add to it. I've put on a range block btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid the range block since his IPs go all over the board. I'll deactivate the filter in a few hours (it's very crude), but don't hesitate to reactivate it if he comes back with a vengeance... -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Though there does seem to be one range appearing more than most, and it's not a particularly busy range. I think we can live without it today. We'll see what happens... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for Sprotecting my userpage JMM|Whatup!? 11:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User page

Care to comment on the talk page? Thanks, Verbal chat 12:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Already done. See the archives. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we edited at the same time. Verbal chat 12:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for this. No way to stop this troll I'm gathering. Bleh StarM 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Any time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much

for sorting out my Lytes Cary-related cock-up. I should stick to editing ... Stronach (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Looks like this has been going on longer than I thought. I've semi-protected that Morecambe page for now which should hopefully discourage them for awhile. Thanks for bringing me up to date. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this. Tiderolls 12:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Any time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)