Jump to content

User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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.

Regarding open proxy protection of talk page...

See: [1]. You protected the talk page, but it does not appear the IP is blocked as an open proxy. Are they perhaps rangeblocked, and I missed that, or should this individual IP also be blocked as an open proxy? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rangeblocked.[2] See also my recent contribs and logs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Ilikemypbnj

Hi, further to our last chat; do you think I was overly harsh in escalating from your level 1 warning of Ilikemypbnj (talk · contribs) to an indef block? ϢereSpielChequers 12:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's just one of an endless stream of vandalism-only accounts on those pages. Australian schools normally use a wide range of dynamic IPs, so autoblocks aren't effective and the sockpuppets normally arrive in batches in quick succession. They normally only get one warning from me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've mainly been CSD patrolling since getting the bit so that was one of my first thirty blocks. ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We were all blocking noobs once :) Drop by any time if I can help. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Script

Hello. I'd like to know about the use of the script you told me about. Please let me know where could I learn more about this. Thanks a lot. --Oszalał (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the link to it here. It imports a list of admins from this page, which is updated automatically by a bot. To use it, add the following line to your monobook:
importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights-admins.js'); //[[User:Ais523/adminrights.js]]
-- zzuuzz (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, er, thanks, but it looks it has no use with the spanish index of admins...I guess I'll have to look for a spanish equivalent to that page...Thanks anyway ;) --Oszalał (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming raid?

The pages you deleted and I tagged, I think they were created nearly at the same time. Just a warning, I'm not sure, but we might have an incoming raid. Acebulf (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a bored vandal called User:Yourname. There's no real hurry to clean up the talk page edits, as they're fairly harmless. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he comes back, do I automatically report him to WP:AIV? Acebulf (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs are all already blocked. I'll see if I can lock them down a bit more, but otherwise either ignore them, or tag them for deletion tomorrow some time, if they're still there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the help. Acebulf (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72.249.0.0/16

This range is up to it's typical vandalism putting bad images on pages. I requested another image be blacklisted here because Special:Contributions/72.249.127.86 used it. Momo san Gespräch 04:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lockalbot

Can you please review the unblock request here? It seems they have bot rights, but I wished to have you take a peek first to ensure there's nothing I'm missing. Cheers, Nja247 08:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Hi zzuuzz. I'm a bit confused why my block of 75.125.0.0/16 didn't seem to be intact. As I noticed 75.125.166.7 and 75.125.166.6 had the ability to edit, despite the long-term range block being placed in April. I've looked a bit further. Is this range under the /16? Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kanonkas. There's been a lot of talk-page-only editing from blocked proxies going on recently. I've reblocked some in an attempt to override the general proxy blocks with talk-page editing blocks, usually of smaller ranges. My recent logs contains a load of this. I have found some IPs are under several rangeblocks. For example this is relevant. This is another one. As far as I'm aware they have only been editing talk pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh silly me. I didn't notice the change you did, which was disabling talk page access. Thanks for the information. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CS Lewis

You have threatened me over my editing of the CS Lewis page. I will not stand for this. CS Lewis was not Irish he was from DEVON and he was a Christian!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.85.115 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The warning on your talk page from me, from September last year, was for this edit, which probably wasn't you but someone else who used the IP address back then. You can avoid irrelevant warnings by creating an account. The notice you received from a bot two days ago, intended for you, was to remind you to sign your talk page messages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of User talk:69.61.221.25

I have nominated User talk:69.61.221.25 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big I Am

Hi - you removed the additional information regarding the film The Big I Am which I added today. I was the director of the film for the last third of the shoot after the original director Nic Aurbach was sacked for going over budget. What independent source do you require for this information to be added to the page? Best, Arun Kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadevarun (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Any independent source would be a good start. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern

Merci pour vous

 HELLO 

I have been blocked from editing because of being accidently part of a proxy server. Iave been editing using FireFox, and the problem appeared there. Tonight, however, I tried to edit using Internet Explorer, and it worked. Glad for being able to edit again, and sad for not being able to do so using the favored browser. Thank you for your concern and replaying me in my talkpage; you are the only one who did so -maybe you deserve a barnstart for that :D-. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  00:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help!

that vandal-rasist is attacking my pages again, and i've had enough of it, check my talk page history, just the username by itself is an insult to me, i've had enough of him and i'm afraid any more vandal attacks on me or the template created by me might cause me to snap and start cursing him, can you do a checkuser or something so that his origin IP address is banned? because i've had enough of this guy and he's gone too far, i believe you understand how strongly i feel about the situation, and so, please help me and ban this guy. thanks Btzkillerv (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not all they're cracked up to be, but we've added some semi-protection which should help. Drop me a line if he comes back and we'll get the checkusers out. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
omg, this guy has attacked me on youtube, check the very same username which he use to attack me here, he has created a harassment channel on youtube too, i really can't stand it anymore. Btzkillerv (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this sound like another case of off-wiki harassment? [3] Then again, the administrators at Wikipedia can't do much about it. 85.225.53.233 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, unfortunately, this guy is making my life hell, it's not my fault that i was born a manchu, if it was even wrong. Btzkillerv (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block settings for 194.66.96.132

Would it be possible for you to change the block settings for this IP to remove that ability for that IP to edit the talk page, they have been vandalising the page while blocked. Thanks Arctic Fox 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Arctic Fox 10:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OP

Greetings, I'm just trying to get a current feel for who is still active in the project and if anybody would object to cleaning out inactive users of the verified user list. Thank you for your time. Q T C 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE

Please restore my IPBE, I was greeted with a big fat IP blocked message this morning without it. (Now using a different proxy to get around it, but who knows how long this one'll last...) Jpatokal (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evil

Zuz, if anyone is being victimized, raped, or stalked for example, and you see them asking for help, and they come to you, and you merely throw away their report and say to them, "Tell the police, not me," are you doing unto others as you would have them do to you, and are you being morally responsible? You are not when you behave that way, and it can be considered being a bad Samaritan and being complicit in harassment. Tell us Mr. Turn the Victim Away and Provide No Advice For Recourse, where should the report against Novangelis be made? Try not to make your obvious cold and self-centered heart so readily noticeable this time, unless it's something you take pride in.Truthfulmouth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

reply -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Regarding your comment at this thread

Are you sure the user you listed is User:USEDfan? If so should it be added to the list of suspected sock puppets? I believe this guy stopped using the IP you are referring to, and moved on to a different range. The range Raul blocked wasn't similar to the range he used back in late 2007/08. He has apparently moved on again, because that block is still in effect. Landon1980 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xotheusedguyox (talk · contribs · block log) (and his sockpuppets) was the first appearance of USEDfan and is technically his sockmaster. The IP I was thinking of was 72.187.96.201 (talk · contribs · block log), but as I mentioned a checkuser should take a current look. I haven't been following this user's blocks recently. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I thought. So, is it fine the way it is, or should the master account be changed? Currently they are all listed under USEDfan. I'll look and see what the IP's I am referring to are. I'm not sure if Raul actually blocked the range or the IP's themselves. In the block summary of the one IP it says "range used only by USEDfan." Landon1980 (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose he's more commonly known as USEDfan. If you want to let me know the blocked IPs I'll take a look, but a checkuser would be better. There are really only two ways to deal with this user: either effectively hardblock the IPs, or encourage him to refrain from edit warring. Blocking sockpuppets is not very effective. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one of the IPs I was referring to. I'll have to dig through my contribs to find the other. Landon1980 (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-)

I can't just ignore the Cluebot warnings because they build on each other, and I can't assume someone isn't going to block first, examine later. So you helped me go faster today with less worry, and it was nice to have someone notice. Thanks!

Don't suppose you feel like doing some archiving tomorrow? Hint hint? :) 80.41.116.160 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You seem better practised than me - drop me a line before you start if you like and I'll lock up your talk page :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

for dealing with User:Chengxi. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayot St Lawrence

I'd like to point out that the Brocket Arms did in fact reopen on the 18 May 2009 and my sources at the Land Registry informed me of the transfer of ownership to Bilal Breweries Ltd. Recent changes to the article were perfectly valid and didn't warrant over-zealous reversions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.109.150 (talk • contribs)

Unsourced content, and especially unsourced accusations of criminal activity, will be removed, and their continued insertion may result in a block. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to which accusations of criminal activity you're referring but a quick perusal of http://www.brocketarms.com may result in you being mistaken. I expect edits that indicate the reopening of the Brocket Arms to remain unless there are sources that declare contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.109.150 (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See[4]. If the majority of that edit is put back I will probably lock up the article. By all means update the pub's opening day. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive's talk page

I'd opened up a protection request, but I see you took care of it already. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Thanks, didn't see that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of the vandals on my talkpage. Here's a little thing I made.

A sack of potatoes
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage a long time ago. Sorry that I never got to thanking you. --Abce2|AccessDenied 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming out

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support and I appreciate your comments. Cheers and happy editing. --kelapstick (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding LEF and Resveratrol

Dear contributor, please refer to Resveratrol Talk page where I have asked a few questions about your decision to revert some changes I had made earlier about Resveratrol Supplementation. Regards, Thiagodoherty (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you should probably ask the user concerned instead. I've reverted some blatant linkspam from the article before, such as this, but I haven't to my knowledge reverted any changes you have made. I've taken the liberty of refactoring your question into a new section at the end of the article's talk page, where it is likely to be noticed more. But you may also want to draw the user's attention to it by a note on their usertalk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was under the impression that the user was you. I'll leave a note on their talk page instead. Thiagodoherty (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re User:NERIC-Security

I read the prior discussions but respectfully disagree with them. The username is inappropriate as it implies a position of authority on Wikipedia, that the user does not have. Has it ever been actually confirmed that there is only one individual behind this account? Cirt (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as anyone, and as I mentioned it has been explicitly discussed. The username doesn't imply any undue authority on Wikipedia imo. In any case UAA and immediate blocks are the wrong place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I respect your opinion, I respectfully disagree. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the part about UAA I hope. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that's okay. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back

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

Why are you going to block me from editing. The facts on the Rose Bruford page are crucially important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ULTRASMACKDOWNGORE (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: RfA question

Hi Zzuuzz, thanks for the questions first. I have before read WP:DOLT, it was one of the first pages I read after getting my first legal threat. And this is why I suggested that letting the user know that it is being discussed and starting an AN/I would be a good thing to do. Maybe I didn't put enough into that answer (I was exhausted after my searching through my contribs to reply to your other one ;D), and I'll re-write it in a second. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some mention of the content in question ;) -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

page protection

Hi there. It appeared that new accounts were able to vandalize your page, and when I checked the protection, it showed that autoconfirmed were permitted. I thought that meant new accounts couldn't edit, so I was confused, and upped the protection to admin-only. Not a good idea in hindsight. But can you help me understand why the new accounts were able to edit anyway? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem, having a bit of guaranteed peace and quiet :) These accounts were registered over a year ago, so they pass the time limit for autoconfirmed and only have to make ten quick edits to their user page. The last one for example was registered 1 March 2008. Someone's been saving their accounts such a long time for such an uneventful demise. We may as well help them on their way. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clever... and yet so lame. Thanks for the info. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, these are User:Hamish Ross socks. "So lame", I agree. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting notifications about you changing protection levels (to the same ones they were before, strangely). What's going on? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google

You need to revert that page properly. 155.245.0.65 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm failing to see any recent undone vandalism. These are the changes in the last two weeks. Perhaps you could elaborate? -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chidel proxies.

Would you like a list of the other IP's he's using? HalfShadow 22:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly thanks HalfShadow, I've seen most of them. We'll probably catch the others if they get used again, and possibly just block them for general disruption, but they're mostly relatively short-term proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created SPI instead of reporting to AIV

Hi, I was intending to report 174.116.36.197 (talk · contribs) to AIV, but Twinkle ended up making a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/174.116.36.197 (I assumed the ARV-tab was only used for AIV). I have no idea if that's actually the way to go with this being a case of WP:DUCK and all, so could you do whatever is appropriate (delete the SPI?)? --aktsu (t / c) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've deleted it per your request. There didn't seem to be anything actionable at this time, but it may (or may not) be worth properly documenting the DUCK connections somewhere. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Both IPs originate from Newfoundland and Labrador and I don't think anyone beside Gmacnroll would be interested in restoring (or even know about) the images, but since it doesn't seem to be a pressing issue (only one revert today) I'll let the blocking admin handle it. Thanks again, --aktsu (t / c) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MCS

It's not actually a move, but a move back, and correcting something that shouldn't have happened in the first place. 86.2.120.107 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked IP

The IP you just blocked participated in an AfD as well: [5] - should the vote be removed? (The IPs are probably User:ViperNerd evading block.) Offliner (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly ViperNerd. I saw the AfD vote, and chose to leave it, clearly marked as it is. Policy may (just about) permit the vote to be removed, but it would be far better and less disruptive in my opinion to mark it, perhaps strike it as a second option, and to make sure that the user has not voted twice (which I don't think they have). I would personally leave it as is. The closing admin can attach whatever weight to it as they see fit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy block

I was wondering what ports were open on 65.188.37.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I had Kanonkas run an Nmap for me, but he says he didn't see any indication that this was an open proxy. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. It was blocked as a WP:DUCK, immediately after I blocked 77.226.249.230 (talk · contribs · block log) (port 80) and lots of other very-confirmed proxies. However a closer look shows this IP might be a little different to all the others, possibly closer to home. I'll take another look later, but for now I would say it looks like a slip up. Checkuser input welcome.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I encountered it while running a CU. The IPs for the particular user were all in the same general location (on different ISPs), which is why I was a bit suspicious of the OP block. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having double-checked, it's the only potentially non-proxy that I've blocked in relation to this user (see my recent blocking log). The others are all confirmed. I may adjust this block, but it looks quite static, and therefore possibly appropriate, if there's little or no collateral. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've found the entire set of open proxies via CU. I'll keep monitoring this for future abuse. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

196.25.255.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

You sure about this one? Within the checkuser time frame, there have been 75 or so different users on it (with tons of edits), some of whom have been editing Wikipedia since 2002 (!), and only a small handful of problem (i.e., blocked) usernames. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this was definitely an exit server routing an open proxy yesterday, just like 198.54.202.3 (talk · contribs · block log). However these exit servers are so flaky that I'll drop both blocks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt understand the message u sent me

Tenant23 told me he was an admin. Is that true? O and do u now some good things 2 put in my homepage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CardMaster21 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenant23 is a vandal whose account was blocked indefinitely. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.95.245.214

Could you please block the IP 75.95.245.214? We've been reverting it for hours (and see his Talk page). Thanks. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though he's tenacious, I've yet to distinguish this from a content dispute. Have you considered not reverting? -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is reverting all sorts of articles, such as [6]. See his contributions. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a 24 hour block. I note the previous block was for six months - you are welcome to petition for an extension to my block at WP:ANI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is their any other way I can contact Tenant23?

What do u mean he was a vandal? What did he do wrong please tell me? And was he an admin also? Please message me back. THX!

www.tricksteronline.com Rulez 21:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CardMaster21 (talk • contribs)

Victorian architecture

Hi Zzuuzz/Archive 17! An article you have been concerned with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Victorian architecture, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mersey57

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mersey57. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not Drexel Burnham Lambert. They're real, or were.

In Special:AbuseFilter/227, you're catching "Rockwick Capital", "Cohen and Stein", and "Kai Lassen", which is fine. But you also put in "Drexel Burnham Lambert", which was a well known Wall Street firm until they went bankrupt in 1990. They can get legitimate mentions. Also, I'd put in "Cohen & Stein", the "&" form. --John Nagle (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a logging filter I chose to cast the net a bit wider than necessary so we can see what's going on. I notice the socks frequently mentioned this firm. And you mean "Cohen and Stein", right? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that it would be useful to catch both "and" and "&". As for Drexel, I hadn't noticed the relationship between Rockwick and Drexel. Interesting. --John Nagle (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably some kind of association spam; this is an example. I'll make that adjustment, and any further ones involving false positives as they appear. I'm tempted to make the filter private in due course, but your further suggestions will be welcome. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Could you take a look at the new filter 229 (test only for now) that I just created? As you can see, there are two false positives because the text string in question was already in the article. I want the filter to trigger only when that string is added to an article that didn't have it before. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[7] That would be my guess. It looks like the start of it could probably be optimised somehow. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, didn't work for the vandal in question, even after I took out the edit count. How about something that specifies that there are no removed lines, since this vandal only adds lines? And I'll work on the start. Thanks again, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking at a different vandal or filter? This one hasn't edited since I changed it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and tested it against that vandal's old edits (with the edit count removed), and yours didn't catch any of them. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. My guess would be the edit count is too low now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I took off the edit count before I tested it. (I'm learning!) NawlinWiki (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Sprouse

I keep posting that Dylan Sprouse has died and you keep removing it and saying that i am vandilizing! It is true, Dylan Sprouse hung himself on August 18, 2009.

I am not joking around.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobothesportsfan (talk • contribs)

Source? -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my source is the news, I saw it earlyer today on TV and was watching to see if somebody would post it but nobody did so I made this new account just to state that he has died, please, I am not joking.

AbuseFilter

Please see Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Filter Cleanup, a filter/filters which you were the last to edit is/are on the list of filters that I identified to disable. Please comment there if you do not want this/these filter/filters disabled. Prodego talk 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Protection

would it be possible for you to put a tempory semi-protection on the article Australian Science and Mathematics School. It looks as if the editting on it recently has been for vandizism. I ask you because you look to be the one who restored the article back to an earier version and undid quite a few edits to do so. thank for your time B.s.n. (R.N.) 09:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I was just thinking about doing that. If I don't do it today I'll do it soon. Have the Australian schools just come back from holidays? -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Would explain the sudden rise of traffic on the article's page. Thanks for your help :) B.s.n. (R.N.) 09:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've been in school for a few months since our last holidays, thanks for the protect, I've been trying to get it protected for a while now. --Jordan, Student at the ASMS // LordInquisitor 02:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the block. I think I rolled back that guy's edits maybe fifteen times... Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. What we really need is a noticeboard where people can report blatant vandals for immediate blocking... -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know... if only we had one................ Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View Askewniverse.

I understand why you removed the notes on the Board, but I was wondering if you could possibly help us solve the problem. Two editors (one of which is myself) feel that the list on the above page is unneeded, incorrectly formatted, and part of the needed information already has its own page. The second of the two users even made mention of the edit warring on the IP's talk page, but they seemingly constituted anything we did as "vandalism". Could you possibly help? --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they believe the section to be substandard, then they should either improve it to their standards, or rescue the data and import it into their article. Not just blank it like a vandal. That's what they could do to solve the problem. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, while they're at it, they could stop labeling those they disagree with a troll. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was just taking a look at this. You are both beyond WP:3RR, and equally subject to blocking if you continue. You have been using some descriptive edit summaries while you're reverting, but what you need to do is use a talk page, preferably the article's talk page, to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each edit and to reach a consensus. If you can't reach a consensus then get some outside opinion. But edit warring is unhelpful. I was tempted to lock the page instead of blocking, but I hope neither will be necessary. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page section opened. Funny, since "it was pretty clear that the IP was not willing to discuss anything constructively". I'm obviously dealing with very big proponents of WP:AGF. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PatriciaJH

She's caught on a range you blocked as a proxy (1and1.com) earlier this year. I don't see any problems with her edits, occasional though they may be, and I am considering granting an IP exemption. Could you look this over as well? Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be tempted to softblock the IP under the rangeblock, though it would be interesting to know why the user is editing from a webserver. It seems to be some type of private proxy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For the speedy reversion of the vandal's addition to my talk page. It's like playing whackamole when they create several accounts for the sole purpose of repetitive idiotic insertion of vandalism and reversion to the vandal edit. Several accounts were created in a few minute period: James45t34, Ironwants43, Df;lkjgdh, Psejfng, Yjf 563, and 34234nmjn. There may be a couple more he hasn't used yet. Edison (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that after I blocked Psejfng at 20:56, with account creation blocked, he was able to create the additional accounts immediately afterwards, one after another, even with account creation blocked? Edison (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. At least they're easy to spot. My guess is that it's either a limited IP range, like a computer lab which is now all autoblocked, or it's a big dynamic range. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Thanks! Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zzuuzz/Archive_17&oldid=1186797946"