User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 9

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.

Falkjdfjalfdjlklkjlkafdsjlkdfjklafdjlk;dlkj

Just curious, but why did you block him by saying "Vandalism only account"? he never made any edits. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted edits and logs. Please check my logs around that time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

re:3RR on The King's School, Chester

• Hello. up to three is permitted, is it not? thanks. tomasz. 12:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I count four [1] [2] [3] [4], but more importantly, I see an edit war without any discussion on the talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

Hello, from a perfect stranger! After a bout of IP spam last night that appeared to be open proxy/vandalbot issues, I was wondering if you could advise me if something like this (the IPs in question were blocked already) should be listed at WikiProject Open Proxies? I can provide more details, if needed, and I have the list of those I encountered, but I didn't want to waste the time of those who monitor that page if it isn't required. Let me know, and I'll be happy to provide more details! And thanks in advance for reading this! ^Ariel♥Gold 15:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It would be nice if we could keep track of all the open proxies that get blocked from editing, but this would be unmanageable on a single project page. From what I understand, the project page is used for proxies which need to be checked, one way or another. If they are already blocked it is useful to add a {{blocked proxy}} tag to the IP's talk page, if that is what their block log says. We can then later browse the category, if needed, to identify blocked IPs which need to be re-checked. Categories are more useful than lists in this respect. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, trying to wrap my head around this whole open proxy issue thing, even if I cannot confirm they are indeed, an open proxy, should I add that tag to the page? (Talk page or user page?) (nm read you wrote talk page) Sorry if I seem a bit clueless, but (okay I guess I am, lol) I tend to tip my toes into areas at first, rather than jump in and make heinous mistakes. Thanks again for the time to answer! ^Ariel♥Gold 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Like much of Wikipedia, it's really quite disorganised. If an IP has been blocked as an open proxy I think it is right to label it as such, so it can be checked later (for unblock) or 'imported' to other Wikipedia chapters/languages. The template is merely descriptive in this respect - it has been blocked because it's thought to be an open proxy (as read in the block log). If an admin has blocked it for being an open proxy there are two options: Either trust the admin and add the label (in the way a bot would do), or request that it gets re-checked by WP:OP. If it is probably an open proxy (e.g. this vandalbot), but it has only been blocked for vandalism and not as an open proxy, I would suggest it gets listed at WP:OP. WP:OP is the definitive place to determine whether something is an open proxy, but quite a few admins also know how to identify open proxies (as some do not). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, okay well, here is just one (of many) examples. I don't know if Gogo does the open proxy thing, but what would you suggest I do with my list? I actually had them all formatted and set to put into the table on the WP:OP page, but then I just thought I'd hate to do that if it was not required since the IPs are blocked. If I don't need to do anything, that's fine too, or if you'd like me to place the tags on the IP's talk pages, I'm more than happy to do that. Just wondering which would be preferable I guess. Thanks!^Ariel♥Gold 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Proxy Block

Thanks Zzzuuzz for recognizing this as an open proxy and taking care of the block.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Rather predictable really :/ -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Would this be considered an open proxy as well? That's the latest IP they visited on...as you can tell I'm no whiz in recognizing them :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the duck test, I can't really confirm this one right now. It looks like a broken (exploited) web server, but I will do some further checks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Curious About Wagler

If User:Wagler is a block-evading sockpuppet, why not an indefblock? Just curious. -WarthogDemon 00:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppet of an IP address (is that good or bad?). I find it is sometimes useful to leave them an account, lest they reform, and so they can be stalked. It'll be indef'd next time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My Apologies

Apparently I was blocked the other day for editing. This was not my doing, since I was staying over at a friends house. my younger brother has an annoying habit of going on my computer and spamming Wikipedia pages and for this I am very sorry and hopefully it won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.10.225 (talk) 09:14, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Family members eh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism off my userpage. :D AngelOfSadness talk 14:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess school's back in

Hmm. Saturday, Sunday, Saturday... at least something's keeping them busy on weekdays. BTW, I've added all the July and August socks to a report at RFCU-IP check. It probably won't find anything blockable, but you never know. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I never noticed it was a weekend thing, although that could just be a recent phenomena. Maybe we could ask the devs for scheduled protection. It would help with a lot of school articles too. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Psssst...

They say Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, well, I have flattered you! I use it on my "reference-type" page, and just love how all the useful stuff is right at my fingertips, and all because I saw the green one at the top of your user page! So for this, I express my deepest gratitude. ~*Curtsy*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I thought it was just me that found it useful.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops

Yes, that one slipped through. I sometimes like to welcome people while watching TV. I noticed the name about a milisecond after I'd hit the edit button. I started to look up where to report the name when I saw that someone had already blocked it. semper fictilis 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA, the better solution for undesirable names. I have a tip, start at number 100, after which the blatant usernames will have been pulled. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I understand your point. However, I was not aware that to prevent drama is a valid reason for non interference, I understand it as a reason for acting carefully (I am a real life intergovernamental mediator) but not to avoid interference. What do you think about a tag for nornal deletion and let them discuss it? Or at least a tag for requiring valid sources other than themselves? I don't think they should be allowed to use Wikipedia as plataform, if the article was texted in a more encyclopedic form should be another story. It would be nice to get your response about my points,I think something in one way or other must be done in this particular case. Daoken 12:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that if it was deleted (if you could find anyone to do it) it would be completely out of process and it would probably be restored and there would be inevitable drama at deletion review and the admin noticeboards (and probably elsewhere). It's simply not a speedy candidate, but that's not to say that it wouldn't get deleted through AfD. It does look quite puffed up. The best way forward is to present a decent argument at AfD and let it be discussed. If you want to actually edit the article you could mention this on the talk page, or even request unprotection from RFPP or someone like me, to that end. It's been protected for quite a while. But if you were just going to add a speedy tag I guarantee you would be simply reverted by someone else with seconds. The choice is yours... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% after your good explanation. Do you think, after reading the article, that is woth an AfD based on self advertisement? I could place the "af1" and provide that reason and self referencing, I guess will be a strong reaction as normal in this cases but at least they can figure out how to make it encyclopedic or end up deleted, it is really blatant as it is, the problem is that there is an administrator who might want to reverse that tag ASAP, your opinion on practicability scale? Daoken 13:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackwatch ... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, do what you've got to do... just keep your cluestick handy :) --Isotope23 ^talk 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Task Force Invite (Join Us!)

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials. Join us!

Psdubow 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanking you kindly

Thanks for all your patrolling on my pages - I really appreciate it. I seem to have upset someone by suggesting that he cite his sources. Completely outlandish, I know. Still, his attacks seem a little OTT. Still, thanks a lot for your help and use of the banstick ;) _TheIslander 11:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Everett High School vandals

Hi Zzuuzz,

I was going to suggest you protect the user talk pages of all the sock puppets I've listed at this talk page: Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Everetthighschool2, but looking at your recent contribs it seems that might be what you're doing already. However, if you're getting your list of vandals from somewhere else, I think I'm pretty complete there. Not sure how you feel about pre-emptive talk page protection; might not be kosher, I suppose.

This guy has a lot of sleeper socks; I'm hoping he'll go thru them all soon. I can't think of any way to cut them off before they start. I was going to suggest full protection for Everett High School (Washington), but maybe it's better to just get all the socks out in the open and get this over with?

I've got it watchlisted, but I'm about done for the day. Still, seems there are a few people watching that page now. Thanks for the help. G'night. --barneca (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, that sounds about right. I've seen enough to see that protecting the sock pages isn't really pre-emptive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wilford Brimley

Why are you removing content from his page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.169.89 (talk) 10:52, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder if that article exists to provide neutral unbiased information, or to take the piss. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs some cleaning up, but I don't think removing content is necessary. I'm sure you're not the only one that has removed content, but for example: Someone removed his picture... Why? It wasn't a good picture, but they could have replaced it with a better one instead of just removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.169.89 (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked but the picture was probably removed for infringing copyright. Regarding the website you added, why shouldn't a link to a website be removed when it is anonymous (Cory who?), unofficial and unaffiliated, using a misleading title, infringing copyrights, taking the piss through its name and content, and commercial in nature nay crudely exploitative of the subject himself? I'm quite likely to remove it as spam, and I don't think I'd be the only person to see it that way. That is, unless you can provide a reliable source to indicate its significance. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Diabeetis.com is a fun take on Wilford. It's parody. He's awesome... and like it or not, Wilford Brimley is an internet meme. Diabeetis.com exists because we love Wilford and a lot of the profits have been donated to the National Diabetes Association. I created an account on here so I won't be so anonymous. I looked over the guidelines for a reliable source and I don't see how that could be applicable in this situation. Forgive me for not being proper - I rarely edit Wikipedia. Please, explain what could work as a reliable source in this specific instance? Would Digg be acceptable? Diabeetis.com is the 7th result for a Google of "Wilford Brimley" and that alone should justify one small line in his Wikipedia article. Drummer1986 06:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You did ask why it was removed. This is what we call a non-notable fact. No one of any interest has noted it. "a lot of the profits" hrm. You should give them all. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been noted several places, just not anywhere respectable, aka boring. There are other places money has to go, like hosting fees, domain registration, and the time put into the website. I don't want to argue back and forth with you for the next month, so please, just leave it. Drummer1986 00:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead on Arrival (band)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Dead on Arrival (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. B. Wolterding 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Funguscheese

Thanks for blocking this guy. You may be interested to note that on his user page he listed three other Fungus users: User:Fungusdude User:Fungusfreak User:Fungusperson, all of which have been blocked as vandalism accounts.

I'm not fully sure how this works, but is it worth checking the IPs that those users used and then blocking that IP?— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes we can block the IP through WP:RFCU/IP, but it's probably not worth it here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye

I'm leaving in literally one minute, and saw this just before I shut down: WenshanTW (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Looks like you're online; could you keep an eye? Obvious who it is, but hasn't actually done anything blockable yet. Still, he's asking for it. Signing off for a while, --barneca (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. thanks for fixing the SSP page formatting this AM. I learn something new every day. --barneca (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just preparing the block message :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Is "ZZuuzz" that sound you hear when the mosquito flies into the bug zapper? (runs out door, 5 minutes late) --barneca (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm told it means 'go away' in Hebrew. The sock was of course blocked, and so was the badhand Rady456 (talk · contribs · block log) (all edits deleted). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm only here sporadically this week. Looks like you got a few more. I don't know if you saw Kitchen12 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). That particular account hasn't vandalized yet. My own gut instinct is that this is one kid, rather than a group of them, but I could be wrong. If I'm right, do you think it would do any good to leave this account unblocked, with a note saying it would remain unblocked as long as there was no more K-rsten G-bert nonsense from any other socks, or do we just block and block and block until they get bored? They seem to have some minor desire to contribute to legit transportation and mall articles; don't know if you think it's worth a shot or not. I'll check in occasionally to see how it's going. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Behold the answer. The vandalism needs to stop. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) (Hey, first of all, sorry to draw this conversation out, as I know you've got lots on your plate. But I'm trying to (a) help, in a limited way, fix the problem, and also (b) figure out how this all works.)

Yep, I saw this morning that he started up again and you nuked both anon proxies and Kitchen12. Didn't know if you'd seen Kitchen12 and were letting it go or not.

Oh, I agree it needs to stop; don't mistake me for one second as a sympathizer of his. The only reason I asked at all is that ACB isn't working, and we're at 30 socks and counting, many created well after the ACB blocks started happening. I'm just thinking out loud that a deal with the devil might be in order: either he stops with the vandalism completely, and does not start up again, in which case we overlook knowing who he is and let him edit his legit articles in peace from a clean new account; or he vandalizes again, in which case we continue to do what we're doing now, blocking and reverting all edits of all of his socks, including those making legit edits. Such a truce would leave a bad taste in my mouth, and basically rewards his ability to avoid ACB, but it might stop the vandalism, and take the hassle of 24-hour watching those pages away from you and the other admins that have been watching and blocking him lately.

Dumb question from someone new to the nuts and bolts of blocking: Checkuser can tell what IP an account was created on, and what IP its edits are coming from, right? If he's creating accounts at home on a dynamic IP, but editing at school, maybe it's time to hardblock all edits from the school IP(s) for a while, until he gives up and moves on? I don't know if it's reasonable to ask a Checkuser to look at all the edits from the school's IP's (I assume there's a limited, finite number of them) to see if there are any other, legit editors that would be caught in that net. And if he's creating and editing from home, is it time yet to consider a range block, or is this still manageable in your opinion? I know 0.01% of what there is to know about anon proxies (which it looks like he's started using), so I don't really know if there is an inexhaustible supply, or whether it will eventually be harder and harder for him to find an outlet. (BTW, was his other IP address (Special:Contributions/67.183.90.238) also an anon proxy?) Nevermind, I forgot about a little thing called WhoIs. Checked it myself, looks like it's just a local AT&T IP.

Like I said, I know you're busy, so no rush, but at some point if you could talk me thru this a little, or point me to a page somewhere that covers it in more detail than this and this, I'd really appreciate it. --barneca (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I should add, if any of my ideas above seem reasonable alternatives, I'd be happy to be the one to do all the legwork, either trying to communicate with him, or file a CheckUser, or any other time-consuming task. Not trying to dump that in your lap. --barneca (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the eye you are keeping on this. This editor is currently blocked for abusing editing priviledges, and as long as he continues to do that he will continue to be blocked. He should eventually get bored with it, but until he does he should realise he's not particularly welcome. I have two theories why he can still technically vandalise. His home IP (67.183.90.238) is hardblocked with account creation disabled, so he shouldn't be able to use it at all. It is possible the IP could have been renewed/changed. Alternatively, he has shown willing to use open proxies, and I expect most of the vandalism is done that way (a school network is also plausible). When the checkuser made the initial block they only blocked the one IP, (presumably the one used for several account creations) which leaves this question unanswered. Either the collateral was too great to block the other IPs, or the checkuser didn't recognise the open proxies (or perhaps they were blocked discreetly by someone else). There are always more open proxies available, but we block enough that it can be a pain to constantly find new ones. If this continues much more (you could say it already has), we should get checkuser (perhaps the same one as before) to answer the questions which weren't answered first time around and see where these other edits are coming from. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I filed a checkuser request yesterday, and Dmcdevit found a few dormant socks and IP's and blocked them, but also said there had been a few proxies used too, so it likely isn't over. The vandal seems to usually edt when I'm sleeping, but you and other admins seem to be keeping an eye on them, so no lasting damage except the annoyance, and this is likely the best we can do. Now, I'm off to do a little research on open proxies; his last vandalism was from an IP in Dallas, but a WP:OP query said it wasn't an open proxy. So, I don't think that means what I think it means. Thanks for all the help and advice. --barneca (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your request at WP:OP, and it was an open proxy, which I ended up rangeblocking. You shouldn't listen to the robot which now 'clerks' that page. It is usually wrong. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, the world makes sense again. --barneca (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for noticing and caring that Wikipedia is better off without people abusing it. KP Botany 20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to drop me line if you see this kind of marketing job again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the publishers for now, or maybe I'll send them on to DGG. There are others that I found, back to 2005 certainly, and some 2004 possibly, but David's working on an alternative solution, dealing directly with the publishers to get them to cooperate openly rather than underhandedly. I find funky crap all the time on Wikipedia, next interesting one I'll send your way, rather than deal with the likes of that again. KP Botany 20:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go

After I deleted them and told the one sock puppet to discuss the insertion on the talk page, they're back, inserting list of journals and books in articles, without discussion, "because they're academic journals." They're all yours.[5]

KP Botany 07:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you change things??

I edited a webpage only to find later that you deleted it.... i wasnt saying anything untrue or false so why did u do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda Hugnkiss (talk • contribs) 09:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This encyclopaedia is not for articles which are not false, but ones which have subjects which are of note. You wrote two sentences, the second of which really sums up the issue here: "He hasnt really done anything yet but is bound to do something oneday.". Please read this guideline. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies

Hey there; any chance you can check the following IP's to see if they are open proxies? They kept reverting on AN/I and appear to be from completely different locations;

• 213.133.97.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 193.16.154.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.236.198.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.223.152.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Quick answer - they are mostly anonymising services. For example 87.236.198.167 is PrivCom.org [6]. Policy is a little unclear since they are not necessarily open, but is probably that they should be blocked since they are anonymous. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've blocked them all for a week anyway for making legal threats, I'll leave it at that then for the time being if it's a unclear. Thanks for your help. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I just noticed a message from you dated 17th august saying I had vandalised/spammed an article. Could you please tell me which one it was? I don't remember editing any wiki article recently, and I'm not one for spamming wikipedia. It is possible that my IP address is shared, though- so it might've been someone else.

Thanks. --Shiro tategami 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)shiro_tategami

Hi. It is impossible for me to say, since I don't know your IP. However if you did not spam or vandalise then you may be on a dynamic IP, in which case, please ignore the message (or rather, it was not aimed at you). You can check what the IP address was doing by looking for its 'contributions' link. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:TainanHao Blocked

I see on his talk page that User:TainanHao is blocked and he does not know what to do. He is a computer novice and a Wikipedia beginner. My guess is that he is using anonymous access and has used an IP from a bad user. I would gladly give reference that he is a responsible member of Wikipedia. Is there anything I could do to help him? Thanks! jmcw 12:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I get the feeling this might happen a lot today. TainanHao (talk · contribs) has already emailed me from an anonymous Singapore proxy, but his inbox is too full for a reply. I've blocked this IP because it is used by a commercial anonymity service called privacy.li. It's an anonymising proxy designed to hide the user's originating IP address, and a lot of the time it is used by huge trolls. It has also been used recently for some rather 'interesting' contributions to Wikipedia. You can see similar IPs mentioned just above, and the block is also mentioned at WP:ANI#Anonymising_proxy_blocks. In the event that a WP:RFU patrolling admin does not lift, of make-soft the block (which they are welcome to do after looking at ANI), I suggest you post to WP:ANI explaining the situation. If you do this, please also mention Heltzen (talk · contribs), who has also been using this anonymous proxy service and is also blocked, and who is also interested in martial arts. Heltzen, if you're reading this, you can use your normal IP or a different proxy and do the same. I am a little busy elsewhere right now, but equally disinclined to lift any of these blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for an informative reply - I'll try to help both people. jmcw 13:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate there are too many abusive sockpuppets using these addresses for me to consider acquiescing to a softblock. There may be a technical solution coming in the near future, but until then these editors will have to use different proxies, or none at all. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

sigh - It looks like we lost a good editor in User_talk:TainanHao - an 82 year old Chinese gentlemen cannot cope with Chinese censorship and wikipedia warfare. jmcw 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting chap indeed. I thought he was Japanese and lived in Taiwan? I am sure his daughter can find him another proxy, but hopefully he can be encouraged to impart his wisdom to his talk page anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Encore presentation

I read your insightful comment here linking to discussions on the use of small icons for semi-protected pages. There is a similar discussion going on here at Talk:Barack Obama#Protection where I think similar input from you could be useful in advancing consensus building. I would do it myself, but as you can see from browsing through that discussion (and the linked discussions also addressing sprot-related themes), I have already talked myself a dark shade of blue on this topic.  :) --HailFire 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I will take a look. My initial observation is that the article is semi-protected and the big template is there at the moment. This probably seems appropriate. But I will take a look at the talk. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooops

Oh dear. When I removed the unencyclopedic Stage Crew text for the umpteenth time I was careless - I certainly didn't intend to restore the attack on the headmaster. Sorry about that. However, I do not think (as I just posted to the discussion page) that the student functionaries of a school association, or the text about students in said association being looked down on, belong in Wikipedia - at least not without sources. --Bonadea 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It has hopefully been fixed now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice request - semi protection

I'm considering putting a page, Haq Movement, forward for semi-protection because sourced content in the page is persistently being blanked by anonymous IP addresses and as an administrator I would like your advice. The problem goes back to July 2007, and the blanking always involves the same edit and the same deletion of content relating to all but one source. Since 26 July 2007, this blanking has been made on 24 occasions. This same edit has already been identified as vandalism as per DeadEyeArrow (see the page history) and Diniz (see warning on the talk page of 193.188.105.235), resulting in one of the anonymous IP addresses being - after they vandalised other pages as well - evenutally blocked (see 193.188.105.235). Most of the anon IP addresses involved in the page blanking have histories of being used for repeated vandalism - see 217.17.231.239, 82.194.62.230 & 82.194.62.227.

Would this page be a suitable candidate for semi-protection in your opinion?

With thanks, Fistful of dynamite 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My humble opinion is that it isn't a candidate for protection, though you are welcome to find another admin who thinks otherwise. Although the edits cross the POV line, they are not very frequent, and the talk page link is still red. I wonder if the addition of some less negative information about this group might assuage any concerns the other editor has. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. It is much appreciated.Fistful of dynamite 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks very much for encouraging me to become an admin and supporting my recent RfA. I may come asking questions! Now if only Mr Heavy et al., would use a static ip... Cheers!! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

82.45.40.89‎

I'm just curious, but why did you stick around to revert his edits than block him? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure I understand the premise or the question? As far as I can tell he vandalised, I blocked him, I reverted his edits. SOP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Potato

The Potato article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing

Thanks for removing it. I wasn't sure whether those usernames were allowed. So now I wont report any non-latin usernames. I'm still a bit new to this. Phgao 12:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah i just saw what another user wrote before you removed it, hmmm not very nice on his behalf and it certainly wasn't my intention. Phgao 12:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not a big fan of them, but they are not necessarily confusing, especially with just three characters. I've noticed though that foreign names can quite often contain profanities ;) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for removing my Speedy tag off of User:Spotted+elephant. I was zipping along so fast adding tags that I didn't realize that I added it to a User Page. Thanks again! --Endless Dan 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection of articles

Hi Zzuuzz. Wikirage.com brought my attention to the article and is being used by other admins for that same purpose. I protected Maximilian, Prince of Hornes because it had high rates of revision and the edit summaries seemed to be getting heated as noted atarticle history. In my protection summary, I used a more generic reason for my protection summary since I figured other admins who actually reviewed the article history would see that it needed protecting. In the edit summary, I noted that my reason for protection was high rates of revision of vandalism by, and/or undo of unregistered users.[7] In the future, I'll try to clarify my protection summaries to make it less likely for others to jump to the conclusion that I am protecting articles high levels of edits reported by another website. Sorry for the confusion, but I do appreciate the time you took to assume something and then give me the chance to explain. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That particular article has had one (autoconfirmed) editor making questionable edits and one IP address making good edits in the last three months. It is more traditional to leave notes on talk pages or issue 3RR blocks instead of locking out any potential unregistered editors. There seems to be no reason for any protection. Please also use expiries, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Babelfisch

Hi, Has Mainland china blocked from editing wikipedia?. If so this is terrible and quite honestly contrary to the principles of the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" . I know many Chinese people often vandalise for political reasons but what is the real reason for this?. Surely User:Babelfisch hasn't done anything bad personally? I find his edits and additions of the Tibetan and Chinese transcriptions very important on wikipedia and very helpful froma user who has a clear command of the language and is of an intellectual . This ridiculous if true China has 1/6 of the world population many millions which speak english and might use english wikipedia. We need his knowledge and edits for transcriptions as much as possible particularly for the Tibetan towns and villages I am adding where I hope he can expand my adding the transliterations. Is it possible to unblock him only? -as I can see that it may be precisely because China has such a huge population that masses of vandalism daily could be incredibly difficult to prevent thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. China has been blocked, not by Wikipedia or any administrator, but by its government. You will have to ask them for the reason for this. This is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit as long as they can use a network which allows them to do so. Some Chinese users use open proxies to get around this restriction, but most of these are blocked because people outside of China use them for lots of vandalism and other abuse. This is an unfortunate tragedy. However the good news is that new open proxies are constantly appearing, and even some of the older ones have not been hardblocked, so s/he can find one if and when s/he needs to use one. There is also a technical solution being proposed (mentioned at WT:NOP) which you are welcome to bug the devs or the community about. Babelfisch is aleady aware of these options. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:68.44.84.185

Hi, this vandal appears to be part of the Krabs* line of sockpuppets that are vandalizing various pages involving Bratz, EA, ESPN, Wrestling, and now Disney Movies. I believe User:Dream180 and User:Shawty18 are the new socks but now he is going back to this IP address because I am trying to get these 2 accounts blocked. I had erroneously filed a report here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.83.121.194 (5th) because I had assumed he was still using that IP, but I believe that 68.44.84.185 is the one he is using for his new sockpupppets.

The reason I am writing to you is because you seem to have experience with him and his vandalism so you may be better able than me to get him blocked. I have tried WP:AIV and I'm getting a checkuser now to confirm those 2 accounts are from this IP address (the 2 accounts have already been confirmed as the same person). Thanks Strongsauce 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes these are surely Krabs sockpuppets. They normally play good-hand bad-hand with each other, and there are likely to be more. I've hardblocked the IP address which should stop some of the nonsense, but will also be interested to hear what checkuser says. I only blocked the IP for a week before because I wasn't sure if it was dynamic, but it appears to have been static for a few months now, and the nonsense has continued, so it can stay blocked. See my talk page archive #8 for more info. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent proxies at GameTZ.com

Here are a list of suspected proxies at GameTZ.com. 77.74.198.212 (talk · contribs), 216.40.236.82 (talk · contribs), Foroto11 (talk · contribs), 74.53.104.2 (talk · contribs), 74.220.207.103 (talk · contribs), 208.79.200.172 (talk · contribs). This should make your hunt easier :) Thanks for your hard work, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. I've just blocked two, including one not listed above ;) I'll set about the others in the near future if no one beats me to it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All IPs were open proxies and are now blocked. Until next time ... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Powwownow entries

Hi - not done this before - what was wrong with the entries - happy to change to make them accurate and usefull —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullees (talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It's just a link to a service provider, is otherwise not particularly relevant to the subjects of teleconferencing or conference calls, and it's a commercial service too. Wikipedia is not a links directory. Please see WP:EL. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - it is basically 'advertising' so I won't do that again - Two questions. 1 on the teleconfereing page there is a list of commercial VOIP providers - is that possible for the Conference service poviders? 2nd - There are 2 distinct breeds of CSP - the traditional 'expensive' ones and the 'free' ones (who get paid by a rebate from the call) - This is not clear on the wikki - is that something I should do? Funny enough although external link was advertising I did think it was a usefull link for people who need to make conference calls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullees (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that every other company thinks their link is relevant too, and we would end up either favouring one provider over others or end up with a huge directory listing. We concentrate here on encyclopaedic content, and leave the directory aspects to Google or Dmoz. You mentioned the list in the teleconference article - this is a list of encyclopaedia articles. By all means expand on the different charging structures, and if there are relevant encyclopaedia articles to link to in the Conference call article please do that too. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Do you mind? you are stalking me. Get lost. IrishMas 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Hey, thanks for the speedy revert on my user page. *Cremepuff222* 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I had a block conflict too :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

you appear to be around...

so could you look at this (I think it's getting overlooked as there's some other heated discussions on there at the moment). Thanks — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You could probably speed this up by identifying the source of at least one of these images. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

I did, and have requested speedies on them. I've updated ANI to reflect this. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for fixing up my vandalised User page. Dabbler 04:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection for WP:AIV declined?

Is there a precedent/tradition/policy/common practice of denying semi-protection for pages central to the fight against vandalism such as WP:AIV? I was a bit surprised that you declined to put semi-protection on that page, but I'm not incredibly familiar with the common practice involved when such pages are placed on the RFPP list. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The protection was declined because it is central to the fight against vandalism. It's on every admin's watchlist and needs to be open to unregistered editors. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks much for the clarification. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Marsha Blackburn

I received your message regarding the three revert rule. Admittedly, I was aware of the rule and therefore requested semi protection or full protection status for the article in question. Another user is repeatedly adding information that is not pertinent to the article and has so far decided not to bother addressing it in the talk page. Furthermore, the user is a habitual editor of any article about a "conservative" or "Republican" to put them in a negative light - much like this article. I again request some form of protection on this article or at least block that user (and myself if you want) from editing it for the time being. That user has no vested interest other than making those with whom he or she disagrees with look poorly. They have not contested my further clarification of the matter on the soldier's death, rather the inclusion of blatantly biased information. Abacab 23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I hope you don't mind, but I changed the template at User talk:Bogof to Template:Uw-error1 as I thought it more accurately expressed the specific problem with this user's edits. This editor made the same edit twice and also added a rambling personal and apparently racist essay to the article a few days ago (for example "A true English person is white").[8] Probably got a pov pusher here. If you feel I've stepped out of line please feel free to revert the change I made to this user page. All the best. Alun 05:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The hardblock

That's fine if you lifted the hardblock of that account. I thought a name like that as hardblockable due to the slang word used in the name, though I suppose I should have softblocked on the side of caution. Thanks for telling me. Acalamari 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my homepage

I see that the revert was made within 5 minutes of the crime. I was not aware that there was such a close watch on such an obscure person as myself. Too Old 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's the vandals that receive the scrutiny :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

King

so how do you suggest the situation be handled? You might check edit history of the person involved. (& for that matter me). Redirect is not a totally unreasonable thing to do, but he wont discuss. Perhaps you might ask him to? The position is such that he will take offense if I personally ask anything. DGG (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to let it go to AfD. At the moment this appears to be just a minor initial attempt at deletion, not persistent yet, and not enough for full protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Introduction protection

Oh, my mistake. I was unaware. Next time I will consider more thoroughly when protecting Wikipedia:-namespace introductory pages. Thanks for the heads up. Unprotected. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention. I've restored the move protection which was in place before. I'm waiting for the Wikipedia:Sandbox to appear at RFPP one of these days :/ -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe yeah. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

block this IP

This is a school computer. all the vandalism was from any number of people using this computer. I think it'd be best to block this IP from editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.118.242 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bluecaboose deletion

ZZuuzz, please don't delete Aimpedia. If you think you need to, can you please tell me how to make a portal. Please i really need that page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecaboose44 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, for all the things it is not see What Wikipedia is not. Have you tried MySpace or something? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "The Prince of Compton" article?

I disagree with your automated deletion of the article The Prince of Compton. If you review my recent creation of that article, you will see that the article contained much more information than it did prior to its original deletion. My new article included an entire tracklisting (along with known featured performers, including famous performers such as Ice Cube) and included a list of all known producers (including some of the most-famed producers in the music industry, including Dr. Dre, Scott Storch, and Cool & Dre). This all included a citation and was clean and properly-formatted. I can understand that the article was previously deleted due to a lack of information, but this article contained more than enough information to be appropriate. --Josh1billion 22:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The only citation provided for your copy of the article [9] is a direct copy of the Wikipedia article before it was deleted (see footnotes). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Nipponese Dog Calvero" is back

His latest sock is 力道山 (talk · contribs). TML 09:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, please delete User:城市獵人/遊戲 and User talk:城市獵人/遊戲, as they seem to fall under CSD G5. TML 09:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He always makes such a mess :( His account doesn't appear too disruptive right now, so I may try and leave it for a while. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny IP Edit

That IP you just warned was trying to insert an Adsense module into our page. [10] How silly is that? - Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is, he's not the first :/ Time for a new template maybe: Your recent attempt to display banner ads on our site has been reverted... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the quick revert of vandalism to my talk page. The Parsnip! 18:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Now indef-blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mesothelioma Information

Users have much difficulty in getting relevant information about mesothelioma in search engines using keywords. All what they get actually is all about attorneys and law firms. So to make people get information about mesothelioma I created a website with all essential information that people should know. But I am afraid that the link is removed by the administrators like you once it is added. The link I provided was mesothelioma.gigacities.net. This effort was not for an advertising purpose. As the user can see that the site is totally dedicated to provide only information. I have added it again in the external links of Mesothelioma article. If you still feel that it is kind of vandalism just revert the edit. Thank You!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.158.179 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. We have an encyclopaedia here with more relevant and more reliable information than your site which is written anonymously without referencing any sources. If there's any reliable referenced information on your site which is not in this encyclopaedia then feel free to add it here and add references to those reliable sources. Your site is also plastered in an overwhelming amount of AdSense ads which makes it rather clear why you want it linked. So I have removed it again, as I and others have removed thousands of other links to AdSense-plastered sites. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. You are doing a great job for wikipedia to run successfully despite the provision of vandalism and other outside false informations. I would be glad If I can be an administrator too.