User talk:zzuuzz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to zzuuzz's talk page. zzuuzz will probably reply on this page to messages left here unless you indicate you would prefer otherwise or you look like you might need the notification or if the discussion is actually happening elsewhere. Please add a new section to the end, and sign your message using ~~~~. Thanks. -- zzuuzz

Help needed[edit]

Hi Mr. Zzuuzz,

I think the Kings Hall section of Belle Vue Zoological Gardens definitely needs its own article. The Belle Vue article already seems too long and there is enough information regarding Kings Hall to give it its own article. The problem is I tried this before my block and got into an edit war which helped lead to my block. It's also worth mentioning I have next to nothing to add to an article about Kings Hall except more performers. Please help!! Evangp (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

I've mentioned your reversion at ANI. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings[edit]

Hi. I just applied a 12-hour semi-protection to Boston Marathon bombings before I realised such an action might be controversial - just letting you know so that you don't think there was any deliberate wheel-warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for catching the vandalism and dealing with it so promptly! Cheers!! 4twenty42o (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


Have you ever seen an Anon IP make a user page?[edit]

Hey Zzuuzz - could you check out this unusual editing by 92.53.136.125 and/or Mjs ljubezen? Special:Contributions/92.53.136.125 thanks! Patriot1010 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a general test edit. IP editors are allowed to create talk pages (but not articles). The IP is from Slovenia, and at least part of the title translates from Slovenian. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Block[edit]

You recently blocked an IP user 130.88.114.39 for edits they made to my user page. (I do not know what these edits are - they have been hidden - but can imagine having had a series of personal attacks made on my user page and talk page by a succession of IP accounts.) As far as I can ascertain, this IP address is registered to Manchester University, as have been the majority of the others. My suspicion is that it is all one person, moving around the University's computing facilities. The other IPs of which I am aware are: User talk:130.88.114.38, User talk:130.88.114.129, User talk:130.88.115.18 and User talk:130.88.114.46. Some have also received official warnings from other Wikipedia editors. It seems to me that the actions of this person are almost certainly in breach of the conditions of computer use that a university would impose on its members. Further, if I am correct that these are computers within Manchester University's IT facilities, they ought to have some log of who was using them at the stated times. Is it possible to report this misuse to the University, for them to investigate? Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes to all of the above. I've found it usually useful to leave this type of message to (all) the recipients of the block and leave it for them to sort out. However if that does not work as a solution or a deterrent, I am sure the network admins will take a complaint seriously. The 'abuse' email address is listed in the WHOIS info. Unfortunately you'll probably need some examples of the abuse (other than something as inoffensive as sockpuppetry). This may require some edits to be undeleted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I've not done anything like this before but I'll give it a go. I don't have an example of the latest attacks, but there's plenty of stuff from a week back that ought to interest MU's IT staff. Emeraude (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you just block all the University IPs permanently instead, you clearly know what the range is. Really if someone is using a shared or public computer they have no right to use the IP for edits. If people want to make edits from a public computer they should just get an account. I don't have an account because I'm using my own home broadband which I only I have access to, that is my right, it can only be me who has ever edited under this IP. Seems it would be so much easier to block that University's public computers, do that and your problem goes away and it prevents further incidence in the future. Regards 94.9.107.169 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
We have now blocked a selection of the university's computers. Yet, there are some relatively constructive edits from others on the same network. It would be easier and more productive for us if the abuser was simply sanctioned away from their network. It would probably be a piece of piss given their attention to network security. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt the quality of the edits of other contributors, that said I still don't think it's right for an editor to have complete anonymity and be able to disown their own comments. I think in the case where we are aware that an IP belongs to a public computer, IP edits should be blocked. People can still edit using an account, that prevents the problem from reoccurring. Besides to do what you propose would involve un-deleting things and re-deleting offensive content that has been deemed in breach of wiki policy. These comments would be available for all to see and that is simply not acceptable. Besides the odd's of a University keeping a historical record of who was at what computer when is unlikely, the only way to catch the individual is to catch them in the act. These sorts of things are only recorded/show up on security system servers (if triggered to do so) by say offensive content such as (e.g. pornographic sites). I would be amazed if editing a Wikipedia page would trigger this, even swear words wouldn't, think about it students are always on facebook in uni libraries (probably saying obscene things in some cases), these aren't going to trigger warnings, there's no way a University with as many students as Manchester could do that.(not sure but think its biggest Uni in country, didn't it use to be UMIST & another uni glued together or something?) Aside from barking up the wrong tree and going on a wild goose chase, the key point here is that known public IPs should not be able to edit articles as it gives complete anonymity, editing should only be allowed from known pubic IPs if the user is signed in with an account, I have already explained the significance and fairness of this. So really come what may the IPs need to be blocked permanently from edits (but not from account creation etc). I might not be Emeraude's biggest fan but I certainly don't think he deserves such treatment and do not seek to defend such behavior. If Emeraude or anyone else really want to be sad enough to go on such a wild goose chase in an act of revenge or whatever then fine do it but the way I see it you'd be allowing this fantom IP editor a final victory. Do you actually want to solve the problem or do you just want to indulge in a bit of bitter revenge. In any case the odds of this editor being tracked down are slim, failing will probably only make you more bitter. Anyways best of luck with the blocks, I think we would all like to see this situation put to a close, I hope the right course is chosen to see that that happens. 94.9.107.169 (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:PEREN#Prohibit anonymous users from editing (Founding principles), and you're not going to convince me that the network admins don't know who was logged into a network point at any particular time (you think they don't log that?). Look, I am not into bitter revenge and abuse complaints. I'm hoping the editor will simply take note of the warning, and the gathering attention from admins, and stop the abuse before their behaviour affects their real life. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello,

I saw that you blocked this IP address ([1]). Please note that he is using this proxy too (180.250.82.187 [2]). Since he expressed some threats to me I am interested who is this ip address registered to? To which blocked user? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It's now blocked. Also 221.7.11.23 (talk · contribs), 187.33.89.38 (talk · contribs), 218.108.242.124 (talk · contribs), 175.45.191.164 (talk · contribs), 189.3.41.18 (talk · contribs), 186.215.255.196 (talk · contribs) and possibly some others I've seen in the last month or so (187.44.14.72 (talk · contribs), 222.255.27.140 (talk · contribs), 89.218.100.90 (talk · contribs)). I have no idea which user this is. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for the info. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Zzuuzz, 31.133.7.10 looks the same as 122.72.82.41 and 118.99.114.191 per WP:DUCK. What do you think? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it does, and lo, another open proxy blocked. You know, it's starting to resemble some banned user or another. I'd bet you could find the answer in the history of this page, perhaps User:Iaaasi. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt action and I also think that there is a banned user behind those open proxies, though I do not have any idea who. I would like to ask your advice regarding an issue which is connected to the above one. User 118.99.71.116 (who is also a bit suspicious) tagged user Hortobagy as a potential sockpuppet of *me*... I find it quite offending and I think that if somebody has such suspicions, then (s)he should first lodge a WP:SPI, and only after it gets confirmed, should the sock be tagged. This seems to be confirmed by WP:SOCKS which says "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." If I understand this correctly, then I can remove the tag. Or should I leave it there? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right, but I would normally suggest one should not remove it oneself. Given the circumstances I'll remove it. There remains the fact this is probably someone's sockpuppet. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
OK and thank you, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not a sock, you can check me. Hortobagy (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Cheers for stopping a noob from vandalising my user page Vignesh Mani M (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

IPBE request[edit]

See User talk:Kknundy. The user has been caught by your block yesterday of 206.190.158.64/28 as an open proxy. The user has previously had a global IPBE and seems in good standing; is it OK to grant them IPBE? JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

201.76.115.245[edit]

Thank you for blocking. Unfortunately, if he is using open proxies, he can continue to use new ones as fast as ProcseeBot can block them. If that's his static IP address, then he may try creating new registered accounts, which would be sock puppets. However, as his account User:Marcos Infeliz demonstrated, one vandal cannot outrun the class of administrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, we may well see him again, but most vandals get bored sooner or later. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Marcos Infeliz (again)[edit]

Thank you for blocking him from editing his talk page with obscenity. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bruno[edit]

Bruno N'Gotty does work at Butlins... 176.250.88.157 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? And what about Brucey? -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw him there myself! He likes letting his hair down. I heard Big Chin was dead on an internet forum and hear his wiki page said so, it didn't so I changed it. do you control all of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.88.157 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Me? I tend to block vandals adding nonsense into articles. Please see WP:V -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you find out that people have added? And I just added Bruno N'Gotty to Pele's 125. I think you'll agree that is fact and not 'nonsense' - The Big Dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.88.157 (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on whether there's a reference for it. See WP:V. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop ignoring my questions. I have lots. 1) Do you get paid for this? 2) How much? 3) Do you get a notification saying a page has been edited? 4) Are you just one person? 5) What happens when you sleep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.88.157 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. We're all volunteers, we're a group of people, we use Huggle, and we go into REM sleep when we sleep. Thanks :P -A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 22:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedians (includes comedians). -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you schoolblock this horrid IP?[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.8.169.253

Thanks! SBHarris 17:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So it is done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Related to the impersonation acct you just blocked[edit]

Per your block of Someguy221 (talk · contribs), would a rangeblock for the range including 117.192.108.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 117.192.114.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also be appropriate? Heiro 20:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just saw your message at ANI, disregard the above, thanks. Heiro 20:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I notice 117.216.130.159 (talk · contribs) is also in on it, which just goes to show the range is kind of enormous. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

More of the same[edit]

Zzuuzz, when you get a moment, could you have another look at the updated Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_reverting_all_edits_by_User:Trivialist? There's another range for you there; my apologies if you've seen that already. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

== List of Serb countries and regions ==, I've noticed you've just blocked 221.174.16.8 and 202.194.14.222 - is this because of what the person behind these IPs is doing at the article List of Serb countries and regions? Zhmr (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No. It is simply because the IP addresses are open proxies (the policy). Saying that, edit warring over nationalist topics does not run in their favour. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
zzuuzz, perhaps you can check is User:Zhmr a sockpuppet of User:Gradanin? I can swear that he is - it have same Bosniak nationalist attitude. Thank you very much. 122.226.172.18 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I will not accept swearing as evidence. I will only accept, um, evidence. If you can't convince me, I'm sure you know where SPI is, but they will also ask for evidence. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Zzuuzz, are you an administrator? This user started reverting my edits, then proceeded to insult me, than accused me of sockpuppetry (even though he is the person behing multiple IPS) and then PROCEEDED TO REVERT ALL MY EDITS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. I'm glad he came here personnally as I don't know what to do about this. I was just going to write at the Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Zhmr (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Zzuuzz, well, check this: [3] Gradanin tries to remove Bosnia from that list since 2011. Same edit by new account Zhmr - [4]. 122.226.172.18 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
By that logic everyone who removes K. of Bosnia from the list is a sockpuppet. So the of Bosnia removal is disallowed? Zhmr (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
By logic, there is no reason why anybody who is not hard-line Bosniak nationalist would remove Bosnia from that list. It can be done only by person which do not want Serbs in Bosnia and which want to delete history of Serbs in Bosnia. Gradanin is well known example of such nationalist which from time to time trying to remove Bosnia from that list (2011 diff is not only time when he was trying this). Now, tell me why an newly registered account like Zhmr would very soon start to fight old POV-wars? 122.226.172.18 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
What logic are you talking about? If I'm such a hardliner why is it so hard to solve the issue of Kingdom of Bosnia being Serbia or not in its article? Why haven't you provided any sources? While I started having a discussion on history (by discussing titles) you immediatelly resorted to personnal attacks. Newly registered account? I have made numerous edits on various historical subjects (even some on other wikis). My edit of the article wasn't just removing Bosnia, but wider [5]. You're the one hiding behind multiple IPs and you have the decency of accusing someone of being a sockpuppet? Zhmr (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
These POV wars are ancient, and there are warriors everywhere. Yes, I am an administrator, for all it matters. I should point out that I bore very easily of nationalist topics, and frankly do not even understand half of them, east of Berlin anyway. There's a funny thing I've noticed over my time here: when there are two opposing views on contentious topics, there is usually no one better at identifying sockpuppets than the opposing sockpuppets. That said, I have not been convinced by this guy, so it behoves him to open a convincing case at SPI, or STFU. It's only a few edits which have been reverted. "Undoing sock" is not generally a valid reason for reverting in my opinion, as it should be based on the content instead of the contributor. If there are no complaints about the content, it is again time for the IP to STFU and get reverted. If there are differences based on content, then consensus from the talk page is in order. So, IP, SPI, STFU, or have a talk about the content. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with him having a different opinion and have invited him to keep to the subject instead of resorting to insult. To provide sources and have a discussion at the Kingdom of Bosnia article. Why I am here is because of his insults, because He-of-many-IPs put a sockpuppet tag on my page and then started (what then looked like) reverting all my edits. Don't know if I found the right place but I reported this here [6] - this was before I knew you were an administrator. Zhmr (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So, how do I get my edits back (e.g.[7]) and the sockpuppetry tag off? Is there somewhere a discussion going on? Am I supposed to defend myself somewhere, about the sockpuppetry? Am I to expect this person's reverts are going to be reverted by administrators or not? I sincerely apologize for being a nuissance. Zhmr (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

well zzuuzz, just one thing: I reverted Zhmr in some Serbia-related articles based only on his POV changes there. I can explain POV nature of his changes on relevant talk pages if needed. 122.226.172.18 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You've made three big reverts in one minute, so fast it seemed as if you've decided to revert all my edits. There's no way you could've reviewed my edits and conclude they're biased, you've done that only now. And you should've done the explaining part before you did the mass reverting part. Zhmr (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
yeah? your change of Serbian names to Hungarian ones in Serbia-related articles or change of "independent kingdom" to "vassal kingdom" was highly POV and inaccurate. In medieval Kingdom of Hungary official language was Latin and such Hungarian names were mostly invented in the 19th century. It looks to me that you want to deny to Serbs history where ever you can. 122.226.172.18 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The change of names was explained in the edit summary, you could have seen it on the history page of the Kingdom of Syrmia article: "as per agreement here : Talk:Banate_of_Macsó#Requested_move". Here it was agreed (without my interference) that Hungarian names have precedence, as the Banates were Hungarian, and when they became Serbian there weren't Banates anymore but were incorporated. My first edit of the article Kingdom of Syrmia was this: [8] - as you can see the Serbian names are still there. Then I went from that article to the related article Banate_of_Macsó, where I found the consensus is the Hungarian names. And only then did I change them, with explanation given. If I wanted to "deny to Serbs history", I'd hardly be contributing (yes, contributing, not just deleting) to articles related to history of Serbia. For example, when you reverted the other two Braničevo related articles, you removed the reference I've given about when and by whom the eparchy was founded. And anyway, you're the last person to accuse someone of being biased: Talk:List_of_Serb_countries_and_regions#Bosnia "there is no insult, only truth (if truth hearts you, perhaps you should visit psyhiatrist?). and biased wikipedian is you, probably an discuised bosniak nationalist who want to commit genocide against serbs in bosnia (and you are probably a sockpuppet too and I might have idea who is your sock master). Article with name kingdom of bosnia will be curred from nationalist anti-serb shit in proper time too. A sad mujice lepo pronađi na tavanu pradjedov ćitap pa da vidiš tamo da je imao srpsko ime i pisao ćirilicom." "Descendants of those bogomils and catholics who live in bosnia today are serbs too, put aside problem that they are brain washed and turned into political and religious fanatics." Zhmr (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
And the other edit you mention - "change of "independent kingdom" to "vassal kingdom"" - I provided a source for that. Do you even know what a source is? Zhmr (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You are invited for discussion[edit]

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in the follow-up discussion to a Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

User_talk:JamesBWatson#Blocked_proxies --regentspark (comment) 20:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey[edit]

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Zzuuzz. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.


Blocked user[edit]

Hi, user Urashimataro here. You correctly blocked an IP number I was using. It was a proxy, but I was just experimenting with an anomymizing Firefox extension: without thinking I made an edit. As you can see, I can still write to you from another browser. Sorry for the problem. I will disinstall the extension. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you figured out the solution. You do not need to uninstall it, only disable it while editing. I enjoyed the first line on your userpage :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

PGP-Key[edit]

Hello Zzuuzz,
you tell us on your user-page that you have a PGP-key, but you don’t provide it. Could you please use a pgp-template with an ID-field (like Template:User PGP)? Also it would be great if you could send me your key-ID by wiki-mail or leave it on my talk-page. Thanks :-). --DaB. (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. User:Zzuuzz/PGPkey. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Hi Zzuuzz, could you please protect Louis Tomlinson. There is currently a wave of vandalism. -SFK2 (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. -SFK2 (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Blue School Wells[edit]

Seems someones been vandalising and adding helpful info to the page at the same time, how about you leave in the constructive bits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username4567890 (talkcontribs) 18:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sprotection for radioactive decay?[edit]

Radioactive decay will be a target for school IP vandals forever, and I cannot find that they've ever added much to it. Could you semi it? SBHarris 04:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandal's talk page protection[edit]

Please change protection from 10 days to 6 months(expires Jun 10, 2014). Because due to more disruption. I'm on here to me. (What? | Changes to you.) 06:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have considered your suggested action, as I did even before blocking. I prefer to stick to my time travel device to see the future rather than rely on a clairvoyant. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jackie Chan[edit]

This article needs fixing. --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

So do most articles. In what way does this one need it? -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Some info is uncited, and some sources may be unreliable, like IMDB Awards. That's all I can say. --George Ho (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jackie Chan/archive1 is created. --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the revert of my talk page and I assume blocking of that anon user. Bluefist talk 06:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Proxy unblock request on hold[edit]

Hello, Zzuuzz. An editor has requested an unblock from a range block you placed on a proxy in November 2010. The unblock request is at User talk:74.82.179.31. You can see the block here. I wonder if you would mind assessing the request, since you evidently know far more about proxies than I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

unblock[edit]

Thanks for unblocking me, unfortunately a Bot has decided to block the IP address less than 24 hours after you lifted it, is there anything that can be done to stop this from continuing to happen Dan arndt (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It has not blocked the same IP address. I'd need to see the newly blocked IP, and any others you encounter to assess the problem. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - it has been driving me nuts.Dan arndt (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sock with offensive username[edit]

You just blocked an obvious Runtshit sock, describing this as a "weirdo". The sock has a very offensive username, but when I reported this no action was taken as you had already blocked it. Could you please do something to remove this username? RolandR (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If it is not done before. However you made this edit, which only encourages it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014[edit]

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do something....[edit]

I have had User talk:79.176.152.55 and User talk:108.25.66.246 trolling me, vandalising GA status articles, violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The IP user 79.... is the bigger trouble here. Admin Diannaa wanted to block him a while ago, but couldn't due to the type of IP address he has. I was wondering if maybe you can do something about it? --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 07:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I had made a complaint here. Please take a look at it. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 07:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to deal instantly with the likes of 108.25.66.246. As for 79.176.152.55, this looks like a content dispute, where resolution can be achieved through discussion of the facts, some of which have been proffered on relevant talk pages. Doing something would appear to require resolving that discussion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
But, you see there is no discussion. He wants to edit a GA status article (Black mamba) and put in only the LD50 ratings he wants. I have them all listed in the article, why take some out and put others in place of them? I'm abiding by the WP:NPOV policy, he wants to edit the article to have his opinion listed. He is trouble. He is looking to troll me because I had found out that he had plagiarized an entire article some time ago. He violated every Wikipedia policy, was harassing me and even admin Diannaa wanted to block him indefinitely, but couldn't due to the type of IP. Then he wants to add a "Top 10 List" of most venomous snakes. That doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, that belongs in a children's book. Snake venom toxicity/lethality varies tremendously within a single species depending on many factors, including diet, geographical location, age-dependent, gender-dependent, and the list can go on. I don't want to sound haughty or arrogant, but he is clearly a bitter troll who knows nothing about snakes, or snake venom. I have studied herpetology, especially ophiology, at a high university level. He is tryeing to ruin the articles, whether intentionally or not. I believe he is intentionally antagonizing me because I figured out the plagiarism a few months back. He is clearly not interested in presenting a neutral point of view. Not at all. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 07:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Black mamba[edit]

His whole dispute is over the LD50 "issue", but there is no issue. This is what it says in the black mamba article:

"Ernst and Zug et al. 1996 listed a value of 0.05 mg/kg for subcutaneous injection (diluent used was 0.1% bovine albumin serum).[52] One study showed the intraperitoneal injection LD50 in mice was very toxic: 0.01 mg/kg (0.1 bovine albumin serum). In the study, seizure threshold was significantly lowered and the mice went through convulsions. Significant changes in motor activity were observed and there were changes in structure or function of salivary glands.[77] Using 0.1 saline as a diluent, the Australian Venom and Toxin database listed a value of 0.32 mg/kg SC,[78] while Spawls am & Branch and Minton & Minton both listed the SC LD50 at 0.28 mg/kg (saline)[18][79] and Brown lists a murine value of 0.12 mg/kg (saline) SC.[80]"

That lists wide variety of toxicity ratings for the species, which is typical. All species have a huge range (some like Echis carinatus range from 0.151mg/kg to 21.3mg/kg). I presented a neutral point of view. He wants to take them all out and only leave the 0.32mg/kg - why? I have no idea. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 07:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, Zzuuzz, for the advice about my user name and its possible misinterpretation. DinzdalePR (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Tommer419[edit]

This user, whom you blocked four years ago for what he now admits was foolish and libelous vandalism, has seen the light and wants to be unblocked. Do you have anything to say about this? Daniel Case (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work in dealing with the archive.is-removing socks. Thank you. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

As one of the leading editors at Legend in terms of edit count, you may want to comment at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)