User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 11

Indianapolis edit war

Good work for sorting it all out. You beat me to it. ;-) (I always try to reason with both sides first, which in this case, was rather hard to do...) ;-) Lradrama 18:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me. What should I do if the other person should try and do all this over again. I can almost guarantee this person is not into reasoning. I can tell they think that particular statement "is theirs" and will continue to put it back in. Thanks for any advice. HoosierState 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First, Don't panic. Second, remember there is no deadline. Third, leave it for someone else to revert and invoke 3RR. More importantly though, try and attempt a discussion with the other user, explaining the reasons why their edits might be inappropriate. Point out the policies on advertising and NPOV. Ask them to detail the Eastern European cultural festivals and outline our policies on verifiability. As a general comment, the article (and particularly that section) appears to invite such edits. There's a lot of redlinks, external links, and lists, which makes today's edits not appear out of place. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking AIexfusco5. I was going to report it to AN/I but after I reverted the edit to my talk page I had to leave because of a small personal issue. Alexfusco⁵ 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Message about Vandalism

Hi, i don't know if my ip address changes but it was 81.154.189.63 when I was told that my edit was reverted due to vandalism. I am sorry if this message is in the incorrect place, but I would like to know which edit this is, in which article, at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.189.63 (talk • contribs)

Hi, you probably have a dynamic IP, so the message was probably for someone else. The message in question was probably regarding this edit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive Anti-Spamming!

I just looked at User_talk:24.1.71.142 -- I keep an eye on the mesothelioma page, too. I'm pretty amazed at the level of detail, there. Do you track users with that much detail often? Or is it just when an IPvandal is particularly flagrant? --Mdwyer (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately there are some individuals and commercial SEO companies who are determined to spam Wikipedia as much as possible, and it helps to identify all their links to determine the extent of their efforts. When we find them we tend to root it all out, and this type of detailing helps with our efforts. You can see more at WP:WPSPAM. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Food brands list...

I note you have reverted the addition of Robert Rosthchild Farm on a number of ocassions, Care to explain why?. As the originator of the list concerned, I did check as to the firms existence using Google, with there being considerable independent hits for the firm concerned.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you identify the edits or list in question. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That page

I've unprotected Torrisholme since it's been three months. We can lock it up again if they return. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good move. I've more than doubled the length of the article :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Openad

An editor has nominated Openad, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Credentials (proposal)

Hi. Please don't do copy and paste moves. It messes up the page history. Thanks. I take it you want Wikipedia:Credentials moved over your copy at Wikipedia:Credentials (proposal)? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I stopped editing Wikipedia for well over a year. I forgot the name and password of my last account (I think it was deleted, since no accounts on Wikipedia match my email address) and edited sporadically as an unregistered user. Well, I didn't notice that now all users now have a "move" button at the top of the screen. In the old days, you *HAD* to do manual page-moves unless you were an admin. I was doing two page moves:

• WP:Credentials => WP:Credentials (proposal)
• WP:Credential verification => WP:Credential verification (proposal)

I need both of those pages as redirects to WP:No credential policy. I noticed that button right after I did the first move and realized how stupid it was for me to do a manual page move. The second move I did was the proper way. The first wasn't. Thanks for catching it. Zenwhat (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll take care of it, because now only an admin can make that move :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My User Page

Cheers for reverting the vandalism! Best regards, Xdenizen (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

UAA

One more entry. :) Rudget. 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I generally prefer to see good faith inoffensive usernames go through the "ask them to change their name" process. If they were going to stick around it may be worth doing that, but if it's just a throwaway we might as well leave them to contribute their thing. I think time would be better spent cleaning up the Miss Dominican Republic Universe template hell. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Right-eo. Rudget. 14:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Hey Zzuuzz, Thank you for notifying me of the thread on ANI. Regards, nat.utoronto 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Web site submission

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Web site submission, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to unblock former TOR exit nodes

Zzuuzz, I checked the last 5000 blocks via Special:Ipblocklist (mostly out of curiosity), and found that

• 24.117.170.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.237.218.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.169.165.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.198.95.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

which you blocked as Tor exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, Iamunknown 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks  :) --Iamunknown 05:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking IPs

Hey, you told to me come by if I had any questions, so I'm doing just that. :) I see you blocked 88.198.191.170 - would the time between each indicate an open proxy? I'm unsure of what is the current tell-tale sign that the IP is an OP. Best regards, Rudget. 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The first thing to try is a Google search - you will come to recognise the tell-tale spam and other signs to suggest you should investigate it further. I would really recommend that you list suspected open proxies at WP:OP, because it takes a fair bit of experience to identify and block them properly, but I'll explain this one. The template at the bottom of the IP's talk page and contribs page has a "Tor check" link. All Tor nodes are published through a central directory which this check interrogates. You need to look for the "Exit" flag, in short, to do it properly you need to look at the router's exit policy (see [1]) and check that it allows exit on port 80, with no exclusions for Wikipedia's servers. I blocked this one for a year as it appears fairly static. Note that a minute earlier I had blocked another Tor node for only 3 months. See also the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Tor nodes. In addition to Tor proxies there are also open HTTP proxies, open CGI proxies, and a load of other types of open proxy. But we can move on to those topics at a later date :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to archive that, because that is the best explanation I've ever received on Wikipedia. Really though, thank you. :) Rudget. 15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I just noticed that I didn't actually answer your question. What would lead you to suspect it is an open proxy in this case is: two or more consecutive acts of identical vandalism in quick succession from totally different IPs, and an affiliation with a popular web forum populated by teenagers who probably regularly use open proxies (in this case '/b/tards'). I would still recommend that open proxies are listed at WP:OP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tor nodes no longer Tor nodes...

I blocked four IPs for three years as Tor exit nodes on January 2, 2008. Another user let me know [2] that they are no longer coming up as Tor exit nodes and suggested that I unblock, which I have done. Do Tor nodes change like this frequently, or do I not have all the information? Cheers, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flyguy. See the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Tor nodes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, read it while I was waiting for your reply. (It's amazing what you can learn by reading other threads on a talk page!) So I guess 1 week for Tor is the way to go. Thanks! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Much obliged. :) Durova^Charge! 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback feature

I come to you to ask for permission to use the Rollback feature. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Earthbendingmaster. I'm a little uneasy at the lack of experience you have of the types of edits that this tool should be used for, but I'd be willing to give it a try. The rollback tool should never be used for content disputes, and edits such as this. It should only be used for blatant vandalism. For all other types of reverts a more informative edit summary should always be used. Please indicate that you understand this, and recognise that any administrator (including myself gladly) will take it away if it's misused. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I recognise that. I do not intend to use it for content disputes. Only to revert vandalism. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will use it wisely. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zzuzz. I have some concerns about giving him this tool. 4 days ago, he made a mess by making a web of page moves. I don't imply that he's never to be trusted again, but I don't think he should have rollback at this present moment. I do respect your decision, so I'll leave you to do as you see fit. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rifleman 82. I did notice those moves, and the talk on his talk. One thing I will note is that nothing short of a block will prevent those moves again, save for having learnt from it. Please feel free to whip it away forthwith if you ever notice any misuse (I'll be checking anyway). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am truly sorry for that mess. I have personally apoligized to two users who fixed it. I promise it will not happen again. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Excess only warning blocks

Hi, please explain your excess only warning warnings on User_talk:64.80.63.131. A only warning is level 4, which means after one vandalism you should AIV report after the only warning. I would just like to remind you of that. Please answer the question on my talk page.

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!)} 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. There are many reasons not to use the only warning notices. One is that they don't work. Another, as seen here, is that they are often not the only warning. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued where it started, at User talk:Excirial. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vand4Im Warnings

(From my talk page) Honestly? No. Just wait for admin to block them. An only warning is just that - an only warning. It should not be used more than once. It even says on it that it will be the only warning they will receive. If you just want to bug them while they are still vandalising, try pointing them to the sandbox lots of times instead of being wrong about what you're doing. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this a rather interesting comment. First of, im not trying to annoy them. Only users with a particular high vandalism rate tend to rack up so many level 4im's, which also means that they most likely (On the border of certainly) don't read their warnings. I also explained that i think that 20 vandalisms should result in 20 warnings, and not in just 3 warnings and a ban. This gives an incomplete image of a user which might be given some lenience if he doesnt seem like a repeated vandal.

If your that cross with it, i can settle for regular vand4 warnings instead of the vand4im level. They are a little less spottable in the edit mode, but i can live with that. Also, i find it rather interesting that i have been using vand4im's for around 650 vandals now, and never received a single complain about it from anyone. One last thing: As far as i know, vand4im's are used to signal serious abuse, but DONT give the right to report to AIAV without a second warning. The template clearly states "If you vandalize wikipedia again". Furthermore it should breach rule <Somethingsomething(Dont feel like searching the particular rule :-) )> that states that a user should be adequately warned. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

They probably read their warnings and think, "if they keep telling me it's an only warning, and then they give me another only warning straight after, do they really expect me to take any of this seriously?". If you're looking for a more appropriate warning after a final warning, use a level two one with a link to the sandbox, or if you really must then use a level three warning which has the big scary danger symbol. If you use another level four warning then you will be wrong, and the user will know it. But you're wasting your time with redundant warnings. They are intended to affect the user's behaviour, not the admin's. Admin's check for vandalism after a final warning, and look at the contribs to see how much of a vandal they really are. Admins usually completely ignore talk pages, and often clear them out because they they server no purpose if they are not affecting the user's behaviour. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that might actually be true. I always expected vandals to be the type that simply had a laugh at warnings altogther. But perhaps there might be some that do take them seriously, and wont take several identical warnings seriously. I think that a level 2 warning might actually do, or maybe i could customize that template a little bit by adding a recent change patrol policeman as the icon. After all, i mainly use 4im to avoid double reports(Bit of visual difference makes it easy). Thank you for your advice on this, and happy editing to you :-) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

136.245.1.2

Hi Zzuuzz,

Please note that an IP editor that you recently blocked has carried on vandalizing his/her own talk page with offensive edits at User_talk:136.245.1.2. Perhaps a full block is in order? Cheers, Daniel^C/_T+ 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes probably the same person. As they're currently unblocked and could be doing worse I'm inclined to overlook a single talk page edit at this time, but if they carry on or vandalise the pedia... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

88.42.221.180

Hi - I'm getting open ports on 80, 81, 3128, 8000, 8080, and 8888 - but it might be inaccurate. That host is blocking all my TCP pings, so I had to fall back on OS detection, which is less reliable. east.718 at 19:31, January 18, 2008

Well that's strange, I'm not getting anything at all. Maybe it's rebooting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very very sorry

I am very very sorry, but I am unable to find a link eith my vandalism warning, offered by you. I have checked many a article that i have produced and edited. But I can find nothing at all. Please may you recheck, or at least get back to me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingnobba (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Zzuuzz. Sorry to bother you again. After that mess I caused moving the Darth Sidious redirect page to move Palpatine to Darth Sidious (which I was planning to move the redirect page to Palpatine but did not realize that when you move a article the previous name redirects to the new name); what do you suppose I do to redeem myself? I am truly sorry. Earthbendingmaster 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Earthbendingmaster. The best way to redeem yourself, if you really think that is necessary, is to go and improve a load of articles. Learn from your mistakes, maybe apologise once or twice, and move on. Alternatively another thing you could do to redeem yourself is to become an expert on naming conventions and (eventually) the page moving process, so you could end up with 100% accuracy in all future page move decisions and even tell the admins how it should be done. It may take longer than simply not repeating any mistake, but it would be true redemption. The choice is yours really. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have apologized to the users who fixed it and have learned from that mistake especially. The last thing I want is people thinking I am a vandal. I have been trying to spot vandalism more. Thank you. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to learn more about naming conventions and the page moving process. Earthbendingmaster 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism

well I reverted MER-C's edit by mistake caused by an edit conflict since I was reverting the Brewskater's edit..didn't mean too..--Cometstyles 12:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I hope you didn't mind being rollbacked :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WTF

WTF DID YOU JUST SAY THAT I VANDALiZED WIKIPEDIA WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.19.196 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

TOR block of 116.80.140.88

Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 116.80.140.88, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL^{Query me!} 09:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL protection

Hi, I see you've blocked user:128.135.197.189 and protected WP:EL. Would you please consider unprotecting WP:EL or downgrading to partial protection? All the edit warring seems to have come from two anonymous IP editors who were trying to change a section. It's normally a stable and fairly uncontentious guideline page. Now that one of the IP addresses is blocked I don't think the page is going to be subject to any more edit warring. There's nothing I would want to edit, and no urgency - waiting a day would be fine too - I just think it sends out an unfortunate message when we have to protect the guideline and policy pages. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've unblocked the editor....so, nevermind. But I hope we can get some resolution whereby people behave and page protections aren't necessary. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemo. Er, yes. I think semi-protection would probably be appropriate given the circumstances. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

• ...that Salisbury Cathedral School was founded over 900 years ago by a saint? by zzuuzz and Xn4

OK? It will be one the main page in about 3-4 hours Victuallers (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you put in. It should be a good article in time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salisbury Cathedral School, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page revision

I guess I either forgot the policy or wasn't aware of all the provisions. I was under the impression that talk pages were to be left alone, a feeling that was reinforced by other established editors in the past. Regardless, thanks for the heads up. CiTrusD (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a good rule is if you can restore the content, like once, then fair play. But it's not worth fighting over. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll keep that in mind in the future. I'm a bit rusty when it comes to fighting vandals/blankers and the policies, it's a been awhile since I've spent an hour or two trying to help out. CiTrusD (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

University of North Carolina at Wilmington vandal

This person has been warned repeatedly and others have restored the link he continually deletes. I'm not sure why you decided Ncjon is not a vandal. Bluehole (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I removed your report to AIV[3] as this was clearly not vandalism. However this did lead me to review your edits. I'm afraid I don't have the patience or diplomacy of other admins, but I'll put this the best way I can. If you continue adding links to your sites you are likely to be blocked and the sites blacklisted. The link you have been adding is not appropriate for Wikipedia, nor is your continued insertion of it. I strongly suggest you stick to reliable sources and steer clear of "tell-all sites". Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I am not the only person who has restored the link to that site, which BTW, I do not administer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehole (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take note of what I said. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow -- you're an all-powerful wikipedia editor. I'm sure you're a toad without a life too. Bluehole (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)