User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 15

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Leaving warnings

Thanks very much for your support and these comments. I thought I knew a bit about dynamic IP addresses and shared ones, but I'm confused about the idea that the 2nd user wouldn't have seen the warnings, as they are all on the same talk page. You may well be right about them being different users of course, but I thought there was a connection with the Lahore edits in April and the List of caliphs (where text was deleted, not clearly a test edit) and Five Pillars of Islam but clearly I could be and quite likely was wrong. What I have forgotten about is the orange bar. Here [9] I just found this: "this matter of 'was the block-triggering edit made after the editor saw the warning' is a point that gets missed sometimes (I think you or Geogre made the same argument that Geogre was busy writing a talk page message instead of resetting a certain block). The sequence should be: warning, sees warning, edit, block. Sometimes it is: warning, edit (half a minute later), block, "hey, I didn't see the warning!". It can also be (when the admin gets very confused, or spends a long time writing the warning): edit, warning, block (cue red faces all round). Or even: warning, edit (before seeing warning), responds to warning, block, "I was about to revert and apologise!". Anyway, just some things to think about, I suppose, and I still think the point should be made very forcefully that people should post warnings to user talk pages (for the orange bar) and ensure that enough time has passed for the orange bar to alert the editor. Sometimes, when writing long posts (like this one!), the orange bar doesn't alert an editor until many minutes after the warning was issued. Sometimes even longer if an edit window gets left open." That's very helpful. The orange bar should possibly be mentioned on the AIV page. Is there guidance for giving warnings that I may have missed? I think I've read what there is, but don't recall the orange bar being mentioned, and that seems important. Doug Weller (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity of edits can be explained by either a dynamic or shared IP, and the type of vandalism/testing was quite different. The quote you give is sound indeed. The AIV header currently says, "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop", which is implicitly related to the message bar. Brevity is highly prized in the AIV header because people won't read it if it's too long, and the current wording has been gradually refined over time. However feel free to improve it if you can. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE MY EDITS ALONE!

LEAVE MY EDITS ALONE! I WONT RUIN YOURS IF YOU DON'T RUIN MINE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmb93 (talk • contribs)

Response to inquiry

You posted a message to east718's talk page. He is currently away, so I have posted a response. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TKS Parramatta

Thank you very much for telling me the right thing to do in such a supportive way. Please support my article name change if there is debate about the change, because this article really is incorrect and looks stupid, considering Wikipedia is supposed to be based on citations and all, but the name of the article is incorrect? It just doesn't make sense. Thanks again. Bassoonist123 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the article is moved to Parramatta, what will happen to the Sydney article? Will it be free to actually have the real TKS Sydney? Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassoonist123 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is moved then the editing history will move with it and the Sydney title will become a redirect (like [1] is currently) which can be written over. In the meantime I would suggest starting the new article at a temporary title (for example User:Bassoonist123/The King's School, Sydney) so it can be moved later. It will also help with the move discussion to see it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Blackwell

Just wanted to compliment your handling of the dispute/revert war that occurred on Rory Blackwell. Bwrs (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Monobook

My monobook hasn't worked for ages, I don't think it's due to that problem. It's still not working now, and I've tried the things listed at WP:BYC. Dunno whether Monobooks just don't like Firefox 3.0 or what... D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ssssssoooooooooooooooooo much!!!! Just deleted the things from my cache, including cookies - ping it worked!! The new tools look - nice. =D D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exit servers

Good day Zzuuzz, lately I've been finding exit servers (if I'm right) take a look at this ip for example. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is no doubt that exit servers are a pain. Not only are they difficult to find but they usually change exit IP. I find this one currently exits at 217.12.16.53 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this here be a little help for you? Also can an exit server change you to multiple ip's? --Kanonkas : Talk 16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Honeypot Project can be quite useful. The issue about exit servers is that they are often (ISP closed) proxies which can rotate, and there are often collateral implications. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An endless capacity for vitriol

Hi ZZuuzz, could you do something more about this editor? Your block [2] has had no effect on the abuse. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind--I see that it has been addressed now. Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Don't hesitate to report this vandal in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on shared IP blocks please

Thanks. What should I in fact have done? Whois? Where's the template? And should I have blocked for a longer time? Doug Weller (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one, the one discussed before? In that particular case I would not have bothered with a whois template, as the results are not very informative. Sometimes they are useful for schools, organisations, ISPs, or long term vandals. See Category:Shared IP header templates. After sufficient warnings I would probably have blocked for 24 hours. Regarding 204.218.240.25 (talk · contribs · block log) everything seems to be in order. The template {{schoolblock}} in the block log can be useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant 204.218.240.25 (talk · contribs · block log) where you put the shared template on. I missed out that step. What should I have done? Whois and then when the school came up a template? Thanks again. Doug Weller (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's normally one of the first things to check where there is an IP vandalising so much. Click on the WHOIS link at the bottom of the IP talk page or contribs page. See the host name is fran-pat01.eu.dodea.edu, and that the organisation is school-related. Slap on the template. Block. In no particular order. Ideally those warning the vandals should be adding the template, as mentioned at Wikipedia:Vandalism. I wouldn't say there's discrimination against schools, but the template certainly expedites future blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just used the schoolblock template on a library as that's what had been used before. I was kind, only 1 week.:-) Third block though. Doug Weller (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to change on the rushmoor school page

why on earth did u feel my change of the rushmoor school page was wrong and do you even go to the school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.183.96 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southfield School for Girls (Specialist Sports College)

Per the A7 template, I thought schools (in particular this is a secondary school), don't qualify for a speedy under that criterion. While I agree it needed blp attention, am I missing something wouldn't a prod/afd be a better approach to the remaining issues with the article? – Zedla (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and among the many thousands of secondary school articles I've attended it's the only one I've ever speedied. It consisted of a single sentence and a problematic history. Feel free to start it over again but please don't restore the old one. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 hours

are you sure? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my intention. Feel free to renew it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't matter to me. It's jsut that I have occasionally blocked people for shorter times than I originally intended, and I wanted to make sure that you hadn't. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such people are very likely to appear before us again, hopefully when there is more time to look at them properly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection?

Hi Zzuuzz, is this vandal [3] deserving of a talk page block? Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One likes to allow a certain amount of latitude for user talk pages, but not as forums for personal insults...even if the persons are politicians. JNW (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only British politics were so exciting, I might have even been roused to read it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself fortunate. Right now in the States we could use a little less excitement. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porterfield73.

I got one in email too. I believe that this was a Checkuser-based block originally; therefore I'm not going to be the one to unblock as I can't review the evidence. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Scratch that. I was the one who made the block, based on a report to AIV. Perhaps we need Checkuser here. You want to make that request or should I? Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind? I'm a bit busy elsewhere right now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to add to it if necessary. I've told Porterfield in email that we'll be doing this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser came back positive, and found three other socks we didn't know about. Steven's blocked for a week and the five socks are indefblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden

I want a second opinion regarding the Environmentalism section in the article Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden. Asking you since you are an experienced user. My confusion is in two areas:

The opening sentence in this section is "Osama bin Laden, and his aides have, on more than one occasions, denounced the United States for damaging the environment". I think a wikilink will be good for "damaging the environment". Is Environmental degradation a good link for this phrase? I mean will it be right to pipelink Environmental degradation for the words "damaging the environment", i.e. damaging the environment? Environmental degradation includes many processes and I am not sure if the US is responsible for all those, but in general we call Environmental degradation to denote any damage to the environment.
The wording suggests that the US is really responsible for Environmental degradation as opposed to an opinion. Since it is the personal opinion of Laden, is there any better wording? I am confused. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the issues you raise. Let me have a little think about it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

220.245.180.135

Hello, I blocked 220.245.180.135 (talk · contribs) which was the exit server for 123.243.236.122:3128. Although it currently doesn't lead to that IP anymore, 220.x still shows open ports 80 and 3128, so I suspect it could be the exit server of a different proxy. Someone emailed me about this, so would you consider it safe to unblock the IP or just grant the person IP block exemption? Spellcast (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out it's listed at WP:OP. The person who emailed me was someone different though. Spellcast (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've granted IPBE for now and unblocked 123.243.236.122 (see my recent contribs/logs). The proxy on 220..:3128 is closed - this looks like a caching proxy of a large ISP, so there may be a proxy floating around on its network. I've yet to look closely, but I think a softblock may be in order.. even if there's a rogue entry IP somewhere. Happy to hear your views... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, everyone, open ports doth not a proxy make. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, that's why I always test the IPs on open proxy lists. It's not uncommon for exit servers to have multiple entry IPs (but if one isn't working, it's likely the others aren't to). Anyway, if this IP isn't accessible for say a week, I wouldn't mind softblocking or even unblocking. Spellcast (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously aware of your proxy testing, which seems generally fine (I won't mention range blocks :) ). Elsewhere I've seen many IPs blocked as proxies just because they have a port open. The IP which was open here has a DNS which suggests it's static, which leads me to think it's probably closed instead of moved. I haven't had time to search for it though. The collateral from this block seems likely to be fairly high, and the risk of abuse seems relatively low, so it would probably be good to adjust the block sooner rather than later. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it there won't be opposition to unblocking in the next day or so? And if there's problems with those hosting IP blocks, please say so. I don't think the issue of how many open proxies must a hosting service have before deciding to block its range has gotten much discussion anywhere. Spellcast (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: cannot edit own talk page

Hello. Please see this thread. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello zzuuzz. I did not enable this new blocking option intentionally, but accidently: I usually use User:Animum's blocking script. When blocking an user/an IP with this script, the new blocking option seems to be enabled per default. :-/ Therefore I removed this script from my monobook.js and asked Animum for fixing the script. Finally I would like to thank you a lot for this message. Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Please slow down.

What particular misuses? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

That was speedy! Thanks! Ben Arnold (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Your talk page happened to be on my watchlist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xuxa

Monsieur, my edits on Xuxa article are true! Use eny search engine like Google and you'll see that she has already starred such a movie. Why not left it? Shouldn't truth be told?