User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 6

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.

Re: Template:Pp-semi-usertalk

Done, Category:Semi-protected user and user talk pages. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a better name; I'd forgotten there were a few user pages tagged with that template too (though not that many, since most of the time we just block the user, so they can't edit their userpage anyway). Makes the category a lot easier to browse through. And also shows up that a couple of user talk pages had the wrong template on them, so I'll fix them now.

I think a category-based approach is the right way to go as far as organizing protection is concerned. Especially with Wikipedia:List of protected pages the way it is – Gurch 15:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That category has been around for some time - a relic of {{usertalk-sprotect}}, which is (or was) the only template for user pages. I think it might be useful, eventually, to split the category further to easier distinguish User talk pages (which should rarely be protected) from User pages (which are of less importance). The whole protected category has always been a bit disorganised, and probably needs further sub-categorisation, while the list of protected pages is next to useless these days. Thanks for the cleaning up you are doing. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, it's a little more complex than that. User talk pages of active users should certainly be protected as little as possible. However, the most common reason for protecting a user talk page is to get around the MediaWiki feature that allows blocked users to edit their own talk page. Blocked users sometimes abuse this by repeatedly posting insults or spam {{unblock}} requests (cluttering up the category), andprotection is the only way around this. In fact it is user pages that are less often protected; occasionally an anonymous user on a shared IP will persistently make unconstructive edits to it (while blocking prevents this, such users can only be blocked for short amounts of time ), or a particular user will fall victim to sockpuppets of a banned user – Gurch 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Best regards, Húsönd 01:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are retarded!

I was just going to sockblock Notrub shakir (talk · contribs) and clean up his mess, but you already did it. Nice work.--Isotope23 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That one was easy :) -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mill Hill School vandalism

Who keeps vandalising the Mill Hill School article. Looking at past edits it seems you have made numerous recent changes. If it is you please stop vandalising the article. If not; then i apologise but leave editing of the article to those who have personal knowledge of the content. Freddieandthedreamers 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at either the page history or my contributions you will see I have been removing stuff like, "Crack is not used in the school when a fat student reveals his arse to the world when bending over...", and "infamous former pupils:George W Bush". I have blocked one vandal, and I will block the other if he vandalises again. No article should be left to people who have "personal knowledge of the content". -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see now, the vandal was someone using your IP address [1]. Maybe that means something to you. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Longer term block needed

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:71.40.68.62 - subsequent edit is vandalism too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm sure it will be longer next time. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. There was further vandalism after the expiration of your block, so I was suggesting another one. --Elvey 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from user page

Gee, I'm sorry I didn't mean to vandalize. I am not using the talk page to say this because I don't know how. This is probably considered vandalism isn't it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thagor (talk • contribs)

You can get to the talk page through the 'discussion' link above. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being kind when I was making a stupid mistake, I hearby award you this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. You earned it. Bfissa 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've also fixed the redirect on your userpage. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkey full protection

I suggest you remove the full protection, it has been a few hours. I don't want to step on your toes, so I thought I would drop a note on your talk page.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. The page protection has been on and off like a yoyo for weeks now. Every time it's unprotected it gets vandalised by like a hundred sockpuppets. Did you know this? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a great job reverting Turkey, but it seems full protection would be a good idea now? Half the people arriving at the site see the Armenian thing now, with full protection at least that wouldn't happen anymore. Since you're an admin I suppose you can do it yourself? Piet | Talk 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can fully protect the article, as can any admin, but this is not ideal - see the suggestion above. One day the banned user will realise that, whatever point of view they are trying to get across, they are going about it the wrong way, and the resulting vandalism will never stick around. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks …

… for reverting twice on my user page. —DerHexer (Talk) 17:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

..thrice, and probably more. No problem. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yo

I have a Question. Are u paying people afte rthere first post???EthanCoryHarris 20:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. No, nobody gets paid. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yo

than y should i do this EthanCoryHarris 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you interested in helping make an encyclopaedia? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is there a sister project Wikikids???? Are they going to make one??? EthanCoryHarris 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out the List of wikis, but they still won't pay you :( -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

no

Was I right?

So my fix to the myspace article was correct? I figured it was a typo that screwed up the section nesting Knippschild 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you were correct :) -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Another question, I see some people have customized signatures.. is it possible for myself to adjust this, or is it a special status? Knippschild 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's changed in the preferences, using "raw signatures". Please read WP:SIG first. By way of example, the text in the box for mine is: -- [[User:Zzuuzz|zzuuzz]]^{[[User_talk:Zzuuzz|(talk)]]} -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Impersonator

Sweet, I wonder which person out of my past it was. Oh well, I guess that it doesn't matter. Peace, The Hybrid 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets attacking User talk:Calvero JP

I've created a category for the socks. As far as I can see, User:Nipponese Dog Calvero is the puppetmaster, and I've changed the {{indefblocked}} tags to {{sockpuppet}}-blocked tags on the three socks so far. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! Dismas|^(talk) 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem! -- zzuuzz^(talk) 09:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've sprotected your userpage. Let me know if or when you want it removed. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the revert on my talk page. As far as the sprotect... I don't know. I'm not sure who's doing it. I've pissed off a couple people in the last few days. I don't want to be a burden though so I don't want to say 48 hours for example if that means that you have to write a note to yourself to unprotect it after 48 hours or if there's a bit of code or a bot that will do it for you at a specified time. Dismas|^(talk) 19:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a thread below of interest. wrt the protection I can easily either set a time of expiry, or just leave it in place. You can ask for unprotection at any time - probably easiest. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 19:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have so much going on lately what with it being spring and all that I'd probably forget about it for a week or two. So why don't you just set an expirary for 96 hours. That'll get through the weekend and then some. Maybe the vandal will find something else to waste his time with by then. With any luck, that won't be anything to do with Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry....

....for this (I just saw it on my watchlist and went into action), I reverted immediately, I guess I should check the diffs before hitting rollback. Hope there's no hard feelings. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's not uncommon. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Help

Zzuuzz,

I am trying to update a page and when i put in someone's name eg. Clayton Anderson, it somes up as an astronaut, where I want to discuss someone different. How do I make it so I can have a link to the Clayton Anderson I want to discuss?

Thanks

Arthursdog —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthursdog (talk • contribs).

Hi Arthursdog. The normal way to do this would be to write the link as Clayton Anderson (footballer) or Clayton Anderson (musician), for example. See WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB for more info. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks once again... Sheesh -- jesup 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, again. I've move-protected your pages now, so if you ever decide you want to move them around, give me a shout :) -- zzuuzz^(talk) 09:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Chiswick

Hi. It seems you've run into Daniel. I'd like your input on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel Chiswick. I believe its an open and shut case. The user has admitted to having the same IP and the same modus operandi. Furthermore as can be seen in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel Chiswick, these are not the only socks. Please upgrade Daniel's block accordingly. Gdo01 07:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This is an open and shut case, and you can quote me on that. I blocked User:Daniel Chiswick2 as an imposter account, not realising the original account was blocked. And I blocked User:Daniel565 as an obvious sockpuppet of a blocked user soon after. I also noticed the creation of User:Andrew16 and put it on my list of accounts to get around to blocking today. Daniel's edits to his own original talk page soon after will give any confirmation. I have briefly considered extending his original block, and considered that this might not be in the interests of building an encyclopaedia. I was surprised to see an indefinite block on his original account, and I was further surprised by a 2 week cool-down block. However I am not familiar with this user or the reason for his long first block. Until I am familiar I am not prepared to extend his block. Your thoughts? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 09:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		In recognition of your efforts to uphold the main page's integrity, I hereby present this barnstar. —David Levy 11:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Dismas

Do you think User:Dismas is gay is related to User:Finkstinklickbigdickstickinitclit. They seem to have similar contributions to User:Stinkytinkycuntikkylicklickmeow. However, i am suspecting User:Dismas is gay is the puppetmaster. Simply south 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairly sure, and I think there are many more socks, but am not currently sure who to label as the puppetmaster. There is an earlier IP address, and I think more accounts (re: Vikki Blows). -- zzuuzz^(talk) 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suspect the user from the Vikki Blows article as well. They were creating a new account every couple days just to add that image back in to the article. Wouldn't be surprised if they're doing it again to vandalize my page (user and talk, really). Dismas|^(talk) 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dra til helvete din jævel

Thanks for blocking this guy. Whiskey in the Jar 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian for "Go to hell you son of a bitch", apparently. :/ -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Torrisholme sock needing a block

Hi there, I found a vandal edit to the real Bare, Morecambe article by another sock [2], Eggflute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could you please block? Persistent buggers! Thanks, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected your talk page for 24 hours, its taking a hammering, of course revert it whenever you want. All the best. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you'll have to revert the 3 admins that protected your page at exactly the same time!! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all the vandalism reverts and the protection on my talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 22:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, too. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: 86.145.105.149

Um, what decision? John Reaves (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess the bit about not blocking without warning and beginning a constructive dialogue, but that's not important right now. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page. How'd you do it (Old school patrolling or do you use a tool)? ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I guess you'd say old skool and a big watchlist. I caught this guy vandalising something else. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you! Since I use a tool, I can't even imagine the tediousness of checking every diff in RC. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 23:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets?

User:Robin 1000 seems like a sock puppet of User:LDV17 from their edits to Botulinum toxin. Could you please check? Thanks. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 13:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Their edits are also similar to the IP 66.158.105.3. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 13:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely a vandal, and the same user, but who is User:LDV17 a sockpuppet of [3] ? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

see User:Robin 1000's edits. They are exactly the same as User:LDV17's edits. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no doubt about that. However, to block Robin 1000 I should really know why LDV17 was blocked. All that's mentioned is that it's a banned user. If I'm going to block a banned user, I should really know who is banned. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now. :) I didn't know the difference between banning and blocking. Thanks for explaining. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 15:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So, should I inform User:Jfdwolff (the admin who blocked User:LDV17) about Robin 1000? TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 15:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be the proper thing to do. I mean, I could block the latest account as either a vandal-only account (at a push), or a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and I'm tempted to do that, but to do the latter I prefer to know why the original block was in place. Right now, I can't see that there is any basis for it. Looking at Robin 1000's first edit, I would say they are a sock of User:Timelord2 (talk · contribs), who is not blocked. I would be half-inclined to give them a warning. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. :) TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Faster, but Thanks

Thanks for reverting the Frisco High School page. I was just about to do it, but you beat me to the punch. ^_^ Not that I mind.Silver seren 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning the rest of it up. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that...a friend of mine originally edited it with all of the football information in the first place...on my account. I felt it was my duty to...clean it up a bit. o_o;Silver seren 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:SallyBoseman

Hi there. You deleted the user's talk page at her request (right to vanish request - probably related to the Torrisholme crap), and someone recreated it again today with a welcome template. Can you re-delete and protect it or something? Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous claims on MDSI page?

I didn't see you make any comments on the MDSI discussion page, so I'm asking here.

Some of the information you removed from that article is directly stated on the company's web page. There were links to the parts of the MDSI web page that list their patents, for example.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I was of the impression that anonymity was acceptable as long as citations were provided. Can you please clarify for me why cited material that is sourced from the company in question is considered an "anonymous claim"?

Thanks.

Bhimaji 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The claims in that article are disgraceful. A Domains by Proxy site? There were libellous claims supported by only {{fact}} tags. Virtually all the information I removed was original research. The sentence "As of April 2006, MDSI claims one patent pending on their technology, and one registered trademark", may well be in the cited document - I didn't check. But judging by the standard of the rest of it, I assumed it was original research. Anonymous libellous allegations are not acceptable. This information needs to be supported by reliable sources. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, not even that claim is supported. I have commented further on the talk page. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll move further discussion to the talk page after this, but I'm slightly confused.

Which claim are you referring to with "that claim"?

Thanks,

Bhimaji 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"As of April 2006, MDSI claims one patent pending on their technology, and one registered trademark" -- zzuuzz^(talk) 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Myspace Party

Hi there, can you see my comments regaring the Myspace Party here. I think this story shoudlnt be on the page, or in another section at least. Thanks, Coolmark18 09:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for your quick responce. Coolmark18 09:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS International

Thanks for the help! All I was hoping for was article protection. In case you noticed, Jeanclauduc is one of the editors involved there. His English is poor and he's been making repeated legal threats, so I started an ANI that you might want to contribute to. Thanks again for the help! --Ronz 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I will just explain - I arrived at the article, following your request at WP:RFPP looking to protect it, but was so astonished at what I saw that I had to edit it instead of protecting it. I think Jeanclauduc is not the trouble-maker here. He is probably right to be concerned at the contents and the one or two editors trying to defame the company. I will try and contribute to the discussions. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!!

I think Jeanclauduc is not the trouble-maker here. He is probably right to be concerned at the contents and the one or two editors trying to defame the company.

Let me get this straight, despite the evidence presented here that he's shown to be selling pirated software, despite the fact that he has been shown to be in contempt of court, despite the fact that he constantly accuses Wikipedia and its admins of conspiring against him, despite the fact that he is constantly making legal threats against virtually everyone involved, and despite the fact that he is taking legal action against his own child, you don't think he's the trouble-maker here. He is the one defaming his company by his actions and Wikipedia seems to be aiding him. As I've said before, I'm not one of the principles involved here so I'm not making any "threats", but I'd be concerned if I were you because statements like the one I've block quoted that show that you, Wikipedia, is choosing sides and aiding this party in his malfeasance; actions that might even be illegal in light of the contempt of court order that currently exists in this case. This is one more illustration of my point that Wikipedia is worthless. 209.214.214.3 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a usual login name? Looking at the allegations in the article as I originally saw it, if he was pissed off about them I would understand. My view has now shifted somewhat, and I'm now inclined to block all the troublemakers equally. If Wikipedia is worthless, feel free to leave at any time. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No I don't have a login name, and am I a "trouble-maker"? I am here because of my knowledge and interest in this subject matter. I have read Wikipedia guidelines and I can't find anything that states that I'm not allowed to state an opinion contrary to that of a particular admin, or Wikipedia as a whole. Is the problem that you can't handle hearing dissent? Wikipedia requires that ALL PARTIES remain courteous; doesn't that extend to the admins? By what authority do you call people names and make value judgments about their characters (i.e. calling people names such as trouble-makers rather than focus on their actions). With every post you further my opinion. BTW, I think Wikipedia is a great idea but is flawed by its lack of control over its admins and its subjective rules. 209.214.214.3 19:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You can state whatever opinion you like at me without reprise. You should understand I am not at all interested in 'what has been shown' on the talk page. What I saw in the article (see my only edit to it), was disgraceful and not befitting an encyclopaedia. And I have not called you anything. There are clearly people who are not interested in the encyclopaedia, but only interested in furthering their point of view in violation of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. People like that get blocked and banned all the time (and probably get called much worse). -- zzuuzz^(talk) 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

+Without also invoking the ire of an admin, can you not understand that comments like the above are also important. Ronz has been somewhat upstanding in this matter. But the original article, while not flattering, is not "disgraceful and not befitting an encyclopaedia." It may have needed work. The "disgraceful behavior" that termed all of this into an edit war stemmed from where?

The idea that a article must be NEUTRAL to be NPOV is false. From the Al Capone Article:

The scar on his face stayed for life, earning him the nickname 'Scarface' which he truly disliked, and once, allegedly, killed another man because he called him Scarface.

Well this certainly is not NPOV. Is it "disgraceful and not befitting an encyclopaedia"? I don't think so. While the behaviour of the editors (who are all newbies here) is not good, the handling of it, has been worse. Everything is FIAT. Everyone is lumped together, everybody is working for the common BAD other than RONZ.

from Critical views of Wikipedia:

There is an unquestionable, dogmatically imposed wikiculture, which puts the wiki's social dynamics above accuracy and truth.

I personally have seen several admins write similiar statements to (and I will post links if needed):"feel free to leave at any time." This statement and the values it represents, are diametrically opposed to the mission of WIkipedia and unworthy of even a talk page IMHO, Everytime it happens, Mr. Wales' creation dies a little. Only you can change that. 76.109.17.236 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was beyond pov - it was libellous, with all sorts of unfounded accusations of criminality. While any negative bias can be considered libellous, it's the unreliably sourced libel that Wikipedia should not be publishing. To do so is truly disgraceful and unencyclopaedic. Accuracy and truth are founded in reliable independent references, of which there were none. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

btw, don't take this personally, but I occasionally have to semi-protect this page to deal with vandalism. There is a temporary page you can write on, or just wait a short while before you can comment here again. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

+ZZuzz, forgive me but you are not using the word libelous or "libel" correctly.

Both libel and slander involve the truth of the statements being made. I would argue that in spite of the vitriol, everything posted on these pages from the Contempt of Court ruling to accusations indicate that the statements made in the orignial article are true and hence, not libelous. You maintain that the people involved in making the statements haven't proven what was written to be true. That is a very long way from proving them to be false which would be required to label it as libel. You can of course reference libel in Wikipedia to confirm this.

From Webster's Dictionary:

Law a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation. Compare with slander . (emphasis added)
• the action or crime of publishing such a statement : a councilor who sued two national newspapers for libel | [as adj. ] a libel action.
• a false and malicious statement about a person.
• a thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.

Nothing written on the article has been shown to either be wrong or undeserved. I personally spent a long time on the phone with the chief litigator of Real Networks and they certainly do not consider their part of this story to be libel.

Also you continue to write:

Accuracy and truth are founded in reliable independent references, of which there were none. (emphasis added)

However a link to the Federal Court website where a copy of the Contempt order could be found is both reliable and independent and was included in the article as verification. As I said, the article may not have met Wikipedia stantards but it certainly was not libelous or even inaccurate. The Wikipedians' valid arguments are that most of it is not independently verifiable without OR. This, at least at this point of the game, is true.

It is only "disgraceful and not befitting an encyclopaedia" if shown to be false. It may not be fitting for Wikipedia but that is a different matter 76.109.17.236 14.31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps actionable would be a better description. It's not for us to show the allegations are false - it's for someone else (someone independent and reliable) to say they are true, and for us to report that. I expect we would continue to disagree on that. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can tolerate one more response:
RE:"... to say they are true, and for us to report that. I expect we would continue to disagree on that." Zzuuzz, We do not diagree on that."

I do agree with that. I said several times on the talk page that the article was written by Wikipedia newbies. While it might have been written with a NON NPOV, You wrote "...and the one or two editors trying to defame the company (MDSI)." But the defamation came from only one side. The threats came from only one side. The "LIES LIES LIES" came from only one side.

To one side you can rightfully say "What you wrote is unsubstantiated, reliably. It can't be on Wikipedia, and guide them how to write what can be written on Wikipedia. " But you can't say they libeled or even misrepesented anything, you can say they did not substantiate it enough. The admins trying to regulate this "edit war" have tended to equate the parties or favor MDSI. While I understand they can not "just know" what the score is, they can look and see who is doing the SUE SUE SUE and saying write to me about many CRIMINAL CASES in FRENCH court and crap like this. Both sides claim court cases against the other. One posts a link to a Federal Court site and supplies the docket number - provides lawyer's names and the firms where they work, the other side says "email me and I'll explain it all," privately. Do you not smell at least something? 76.109.17.236 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The John Fisher School

Thank you for your reverts of the John Fisher School page. But that user has done it again. Please block him—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Breakfast100 (talk • contribs).

Yes, he is isn't he. Last edit seemed to be making some corrections, and at least an attempt at a good faith edit. I will watch closely. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Help!

I have had some vandalisation warning added to my talk page and I do not know what I have done. I have not been on Wikipedia for around a week. Could you please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Jay MacDonald 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, yes this should not be difficult to understand. Please examine the following edits you made: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Edits such as these are likely to get you blocked. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingdomkey01

Dude, where's your sense of humor? I made a harmless joke that wasn't even crude. I thought you guys would appreciate my originality. I'm sorry for thinking you guys were cool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingdomkey01 (talk • contribs).

Pianotalk's Vadalization

User:Pianotalk has once again vadalized the Frisco High School page. How is it possible to get him in trouble?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silver seren (talk • contribs).

Quite bizarre vandalism? I have given him a warning and added the page to my watchlist. If it happens again he should probably get another warning, then after that if he doesn't stop he will probably get blocked. More info is at Wikipedia:Vandalism. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its pretty strange. I have the feeling its not going to stop though.Silver seren 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

QED. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

NP. Indef blocked. --Guinnog 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link

Can you explain why you removed the link www.betterwithlabour.co.uk from the Labour Party's page? Its an official site of the Labour Party - the Conservatives have similar links on their page. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sm9488 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi. It's unrelated to the Labour Party. It's just a campaigning tool. The Conservative Party (UK) article also has too many unrelated links. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand - who gets to decide whether its unrelated to the Labour Party. Isn't a campaigning tool by definition "related" to the Labour Party. Where's the definition of what the page content should consist of?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sm9488 (talk • contribs).

The answer is, other editors. The site was extolling the virtues of the NHS under Labour - this is unrelated to the Labour Party in encyclopaedic terms. The external links guidelines are relevant - "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any". No doubt they have all the relevant campaigning links on their site. We do not have any links to "NHS: Worse under Labour" on the Conservative page either. If people want to read about the NHS they can visit the article. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Laughadded

The user mentioned above has created multiple accounts which has to do with a former Sock puppeteer and can you plaese block its multiple accounts as well..--Cometstyles 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Check his talk page for a list of accounts created recently. I don't know about previous socks. Mr Ooompah seems to be active at the moment (?) -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope..he isnt Mr oompapa(Oompapa uses his name or Buddha in his names) but I have encountered this puppet name before parodying as Thomas the tank engine before..I'll try to find out who he his..Thanks anyway for blocking his minions..--Cometstyles 12:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Speedy Tage

Hello, you removed the speedy delete tag off my User Talk page without any explanation, which I was trying to learn how to use. I would appreciate it if you could at least explain your action. Also, I read throught rules prior to posting it, and cannot see why you would have removed it, in accordance with Wiki policy. Padishah5000 15:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I left a link in my edit summary to Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F. User talk pages are usually not deleted, particularly as long as the user is active, and particularly if there are administrative notes - "after checking that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept". Whether rightly or wrongly, your talk page contains some notices which may be useful for the administration of the project. An example of such a notice can be seen here. "As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted". -- zzuuzz^(talk) 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thank you for the reply. I was actually trying to practice the delete process on wiki. Padishah5000 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurryends's page

Hello, can you remove the page User:Hurryends? I put the warnings in the wrong place. Sorry about that. Snesfm 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. I just placed an {{indef}} tag on it. They can be used to cover all sorts. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Snesfm 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry...

I didn't know ....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pirate Alien Monkeys (talk • contribs).

Sockpuppet

I put together a case of all of the accounts that have vandalized your talk page. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť ^{Talk to me} or _{Need help?} 02:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I can fill in some background - one is called the 172. vandal - you can see their work on Olivia Chow and several other Canadian politicians (eg Stéphane Dion and Svend Robinson) as well as some obscure articles like Microscope, Poultry, Wingnut, and strangely Pulp Fiction. He's upset because I've protected his vandalism targets and usually block him on sight. The second vandal, named after Buddha and Oompapa (and also User:So what else is new?) is User:Mr oompapa. He's just attention-seeking. The Sedbergh67 vandal is just a kid whose school is on my watchlist, and who I've blocked a few times. The <big><big><big>... vandal is yet another vandal I've upset after I stopped them vandalising User talk:Irishguy and User talk:Jimbo Wales - they have a very dynamic IP range, and might even be Mr oompapa. They may be the same as User:Habitbroke, or Habitbroke could just be a copycat. Any others are probably just random vandals I've blocked or reverted on one or more occasions. I have these three (or perhaps more) regular pet vandals, and many many part-time vandalising admirers. I will comment at the sockpuppet page in due course. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert (again)

Thanks for the revert to my user page. I was online but didn't notice it happen. Yet another in a series of attacks tonight, and I am pretty sure it's connected to a string of vandalism attacks from late last night (my time). Sigh... Anyway, thanks again. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem! -- zzuuzz^(talk) 03:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

*And thanks again, for just now. (Sorry, I suffered browser freeze while trying to reply.) But, I think I just might be detecting a slight pattern to this. :O) Flowerpotman talk|contribs 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see a slight pattern too. You can have your page sprotected if you like. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

'Spose I better go for an sprotect, although the chances are he will just move onto someone else that warned or reported him, and that's a lot of people. I got onto his list when I saw a rather blatant redirect on RC and warned him. If he (or she) keeps going at this rate, he's going to go through most of the IPs for Colarado. Anyway, another cheers for your work tonight. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No Warnings

I'm aware of the vandalism that this IP engaged in, but I thought it would be more appropriete to unblock the user and warn them her/him first, maybe with the {{bv}}, in assuming good fatih.--U.S.A. cubed 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A pattern of repeated vandalism, after being previously warned and blocked several times, does not warrant AGF. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism..." -- zzuuzz^(talk) 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and you are correct that AGF is not required after repeated vandalism after repeated warnings. Please let me elaborate on why I think this case is different.

• I am refering to 70.59.203.64.
• There have only been two edits made by this IP. [10] [11]
• The IP received zero warnings. As shown in the history of the talk page, there was only on message by you that the IP has been blocked for vandalism;but no other messages, including no warning.

Perhaps there is something that I don't understand. Is this IP a sock, or have related to a few other IPs that in fact have been warned. I don't know. If the IP's been warned, I'll take your word for it at this point.--U.S.A. cubed 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please examine the history of the page they were vandalising, and the histories of the vandals' talk pages. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 04:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me now. There was repeated vandalism to the same article, and you assumed that it was the same person was engaging in it, for the commen vandalism done to the article, in this case, "user gay" being added. I never applied the limits of AGF in that way;I was focusing on every indiviuls edits, and not the particular history of one article, but I didn't think I would have to worry about WP:AGF in you, and that remains correct. Thanks for clearing that up.--U.S.A. cubed 04:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There comes a time to call a sock a sock. The 70.58... and 208.45... vandals even have the same ISP. This is probably no coincidence either. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 04:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)