User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 8

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.

User:Dattatreyahemanginibhagyalakshmijayashekhar

This could be a put-on, or it could be a genuine south Indian surname (or first name surname combination), possibly Kerala. I'd tread kind of lightly here. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a tricky one. At least s/he appears to have a shorter name. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I once made the mistake of asking an Indian friend what his initial "K" stood for. Yikes. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) perhaps you've seen Wikipedia:Dweller's Sri Lankan cricket team test (humour). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that. Thanks: it's very funny. On the other hand, I've come across names that could top the record easily -- often Tamil or Kerala names, or belonging to people from Malaysia from a subcontinental ethnic background. Now I know why initials were invented. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this better be okay

--Sinepgib 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fcukinthecity

Just a note, I'd appreciate it if you changed the block reason on this user from username to vandalism only. Considering fcuk is a popular brand of clothing, calling it divisive or inflammatory could be seen as setting a precedent Id rather not have :) Thanks for considering it. -M^ask? 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind if that was the case. Though vandalism was apparent, the user was not blocked for vandalism, but for choosing an inappropriate username (quite a few times). I'm not sure if I've set a precedent, but if I have it should probably be ignored. I can't imagine a discussion at RFCN about this username lasting long, can you? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Ignore me then, now that I've had some sleep :) -M^ask? 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballymena Academy

Here, who are you to say whats right and wrong all these things that have been said are true, are you saying I should lie about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethan1000 (talk • contribs).

Please provide your sources. Oh there aren't any. Please don't bother then. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user talk page protection

Can you please protect User talk:Fantastic Samwise Gamgee? He is continuing to vandalise it after being blocked. Momusufan 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's timing for you. I'm sure it won't be long now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he stopped in time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for reverting vandalism from my talk page ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you perhaps approve me here? That would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. Sala Skan 18:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It will take a little while to look into it. It might help if you explain your understanding of what AWB is, and is not, for. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used it before, so I will be careful. From what I read, it is meant for assisting in fixing things as typos and formatting, and should be used with caution. Sala Skan 19:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page protection

Can you please protect User talk:Writeitin? user is vandalising it after being blocked. I believe he should have gotten an indefinite block instead of a 24 hour block for vandalising userpages and making a non notable article. Momusufan 02:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He sure was persistant, Thanks for protecting his page. Momusufan 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

link to related articles

Icobi i am really confused here, i've been trying to contribute to topics by providing relevant, informative links pertaining to that topic. For example, in the Realtor page, i placed a non biased, third party link on 'how to be a Realtor' but the link was removed. The web page does not promote a product or service.

This is happening with a lot of contributions I am making. I been a user of wikipedia for a while now, and i want to contribute. I have read the guidelines and regulations, and as far as i know, all the material i have linked to has been relevant to the topic. I am confused as to what is permitted and what is not permitted contribution, because i have seen links to external articles and opinions to people's personal blogs and such. Do i need to pass a certain test or have certain qualifications to contribute.

the standard response when my additions are remove is that wiki has a stricted rel no follow. i have no other intention but to share relevant sources to the community, nothing more. --Icobi 07:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You appear to have done nothing but insert external links, to sites which are all registered to the same person (probably you), for the purpose of generating affiliate commissions (AdSense pub-##########). Please see the policies on spamming and external links. Since no one has mentioned rel=nofollow when removing your links, perhaps you would also like to identify the other accounts you have used for inserting your links. If you would like to contribute, please do not add any links to your sites. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)""

none of the sites i have contributed sell a product or promote a service, and yet, all links where removed. while their may have been ad sense (removed code to protect the webmaster), if that is what is causing suspicions, then they have been removed. Does that mean that any link on external sites that have ad sense should be removed as well (i mean, any that I see?)....should i notify you of any external links that lead to sites that sell or promote something? I feel like there has been undue suspicion placed on me, as nobody has commented on the relevancy of the articles i linked to. It is not my intention to cause mischief or trouble, or to be a headache....but i've been linking to some darn good articles & discussions that are relevant to the wiki topic...

The quality of a link can be judged by the demand for it from independent editors. Perhaps you could ask yourself this: if you hadn't linked to your sites in order to generate advertising revenue, would anybody else have linked to these sites? The answer is a clear no. Please read the guidelines again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is a big unfair assumption that i am contributing these links for some sort of gain. i have no idea i others have linked to these sites, but i do have them bookmarked. so don't i count if i am linked to them?

I'm sorry to be direct, but it is clear that you have a conflict of interest in inserting these links. The recommended advice (as seen in the aforementioned guidelines) is to propose the link(s) on the article's talk page and allow a consensus to develop among independent editors as to the suitability of the link(s). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the link, i hope it clears all suspicions of my motives. I will re-evaluate my contribution in the future to avoid this sort of confusion in the future. Here is the link: How to be a realtor Is that appropriate?

"none of the sites i have contributed sell a product or promote a service", they are all from the same adsense publisher..hmmmm--Hu12 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is not true. i have had all sites removed, many from different sources. but i guess there's no point in saying anything any longer. I have tried to contribute in other ways besides adding external links, but those were not welcome either. i feel no point in contributing to this project if i have to defend my self every time. Please remove all external links on wikipeida w/adsense or advertising if that is the policy. As you guys have made it clear, there is nothing i have to offer that can benefit this project.

WOn dering

I was just wondering why you are all over my case?(Sparrowman980 02:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am sry but what you got to understand i am trying to get the recources but you will just have to wait most are correct for license but some are not some can be delted but till then i am working on it.(Sparrowman980 02:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Editwikipediausername

Thank you for your notification on my talk page. My response can be found here. Regards, Editwikipediausername 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your message on my talk page. Two questions I need to ask are

a) Can I continue editing under "Editwikipediausername" until the change to "Anameofmyveryown" takes effect? (I dont know how fast WP:CHU processes requests - hours,days,weeks?),

b) Does me being logged in as "Editwikipediausername" prevent the change in some fashion? (I don't want an admin to be drumming their fingers and muttering "log off, for Pete's sake" under their breath)

Regards, Editwikipediausername 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It normally takes a few days, and although all the notices say you can't edit under an inappropriate username, I think we can turn a blind eye for this short time. I doubt anyone will block you considering the rename request has been made. And your current name isn't exactly outrageous. In respect of your second question, I'm afraid I have no idea. I expect it won't be necessary to log out, and I'm sure a bureaucrat would tell you if it was the case. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Regards, Editwikipediausername 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocking Haifa University IP

Dear Zzuuzz

Did you put the blocked upon the Haifa University IP address? it was written that you are the autoblocking admin. Please let me explain that this IP address is the same for many computers at different compartments of the Univeristy, which serve almost 20,000 students and visitors every day. I think that these blocked is there for along time by now, but I think that you can’t block the entire university just because one or few people violated the Wikipedia rules (whether it happened or not), using the University computers while doing so. Cheers --Gilisa 14:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW

In Hebrew, your nick means "move away" :)

Hello. I have no idea about which block you mean. I expect I blocked a vandal earlier today, and the IP is suffering an Autoblock. I would probably be happy to remove it, given further information such as which IP it is, or who it is affecting. See MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've identified the block causing the autoblock. Unfortunately User:Checmate is a prolific vandal based at this university, and I would not be disappointed if they don't edit again. However given the collateral I will lift the autoblock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I, however, rarely edit from there (I'm at the university only once in a week)- and I truly have nothing to do with User:Checmate. Any way, what about soft blocking of public IP which are, by their nature, being exposed to abusing use. Best --Gilisa 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To Zzuuzz for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hu12, we are indeed tireless ;-) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks

For reverting vandalism of my user page Stephenb (Talk) 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torrisholme

How about we give Torrisholme full protection for a month or two? I know this type of case isn't mentioned in WP:PROTECT, but I have a hard time thinking anyone would object. Pax:Vobiscum 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Heavy and friends do seem to have narrowed their focus recently. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected fully for a month. If any of you think it's too long or short feel free to change it. Pax:Vobiscum 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would have chosen six months, but then that's me. We can review it after the month. I'm ready to protect Torrisholme Village too. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that just might have been the answer to the question... Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For blocking University of Waterloo vandals. AppleMacReporter 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AppleMacReporter, and you're welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revert

Thanks. :) Acalamari 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk:Kornfan71 Revert

Thanks. My friend has been messing around with the page, and apparently I missed that post. Oops. ---Signed By KoЯnfan71 (User Page—My Talk) 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I saw you revert my edit :) I did a similar thing earlier. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free-Research.com

Thanks for your note. Apologies. Wanted to clarify if the link above can be left in the Market Research Companies... Other companies have links there...?Luapnampahc 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your website is currently throwing an error, so it's impossible to examine its relevance in any detail. You've done the right thing asking on the article's talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:68.44.84.185 requesting unblock

Hey! I saw you blocking my new open proxies friends so I assume you're still around :) I am going to decline the autoblock lift of this IP. since you are the blocking admin you might have more knowledge of the case than I do, feel free to review it yourself :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the IP is dynamic after all... Do you mind if I unblock him? -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't mind at all if you lift the autoblock, though this is a sock so I won't be be lifting it myself. For background see this and this. It's a real long term thing so there's no hurry - I'll get a checkuser or something in the near future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got called away and someone declined, but if I understand this well, that might be someone else now. Anyway the autoblocks don't last forever :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two ISPs at the same location is what I read elsewhere (also see thread below), and the unblock decline [1] was quite pertinent. I expect to hardblock this IP in the future if the nonsense continues. This is a Krabs sock, and the IP has been static for at least the last month. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Krabs again

Hi there. Yeah, when I asked for the blocking a few days back I only just noticed that IP address, but was a little unsure considering Krabs had used the same address for two years. Although since a WHOIS check on the two IP addresses both lead to New Jersey and the two edit styles are similar, I'm not surprised. Thanks for your help. -- Oakster Talk 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for blocking this IP who vandalized my user page. Also thanks for the revert! --Hasek is the best 21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg on all economics and finance stub articles

The econonomics and finance stub template uses Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg, a public domain image. BetacommandBot interpreted Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg as non-free, then put an image warning message on the talk page of every single econ and finance stub article. Can those edits be mass-reversed? The message is extremely confusing, because few of the stubs have images -- other than this little image on the template message. --Busy Stubber 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a straightforward economical way of doing it, but I'll take another look. The messages can probably be safely ignored, despite being annoyingly confusing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your notes at the talk page of the bot; I can personally tell you this is a common issue. Yes, it is true the Russian PD tag was at the image. About right after the currency image tag was placed on the image, Betacommand came in and applied the tag. I dealt with this before when images tagged with depreciated tags, such as PD-flag, were tagged as fair use disputed by the bot. Betacommand knows about the issue, but this error is not totally his fault. It is the fault of those who tagged the image or who did the image tag shuffling months ago (going from free to non-free). What I can suggest for this image is to just use the category or currency images without the currency template tag. However, I do have a question about this image; who is the source of the image? Did a Wikipedian scan the coins? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about fault here, but about ways the process can improved to avoid such mistakes (and it's a mistake because the problem could have easily been flagged by the bot). I'm sorry I know nothing about the background of this image. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok; now since I know the root of the issue, I am not sure if Betacommand would put that template on some kinda of "ignore this" list. If I can offer an honest opinion, I would just use the image category for the currency images and not use the template, since that is the main problem that I am seeing (IMHO). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zzuuzz, I left you a message at Template Talk:Econ-stub. I'm very sorry about my edits to the template -- I didn't realize that a message on a single stub template could show up on ALL stubs. I just meant to get the message out to the econ and finance stubs. I'm very, very sorry. It won't happen again, I promise! --Busy Stubber 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. It actually wasn't that bad an idea. It's a pity the mess was caused in the first place, and more of a pity it'll probably happen again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and patience :) Maybe they'll figure out how to stop it from happening again.... --Busy Stubber 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.231.191.106

Hi; I never do this, especially to someone who has been an admin longer than I have. I know that user is an IP, and has not been blocked before, and of course I have not changed anything that you have done; do you really think that the block you imposed, in the light of the edits involved, is long enough? Just asking, please don't hit me.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to comment any time. This is a sockpuppet (or meatpuppet there is no difference) on a dynamic IP who has been blocked at least once today. This is the IP mentioned above[2], and here is one I blocked 21 minutes earlier [3]. There are more I think, but I hope this assuages your concerns (are you sure you asked the right question - did you mean too long?). A 21 minute block would probably have done the same job as a three week block, but feel free to suggest an adjustment. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NDP

Heya! Any reason that you're not warning and arv'ing 172.146.45.175 instead of sprotecting the article? He seems to be the sole vandal... Thanks!! -Superbeecat 23:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes. See the history of Olivia Chow and Jack Layton. I'll block this one right now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand educated :) Keep on keeping on! -Superbeecat 23:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit more background education here, and Bob Rae seems to be quite unpopular too. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks you for blocking User:FFLH100 Angel Of Sadness 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that wasn't me

Sorry that wasn't me typing that bad edit. it was my sister messing with my computer again. I've been on wikipedia and I respect wikipedians who follow the rules not ones that wreck wikipedia itself.Thanks againAnimereadabouterbrought back 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I hope you re-read it anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Question

It was indicated in the edit history of the Sandbox that you performed a "manual sandbox reset" - how do you accomplish this? Typically when I observe users not playing nice, I just revert to an earlier version and move on. Your solution (i.e., a clean reset), however, appears to be a more streamlined route. Cheers. Dust Filter 23:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a one- (well, two-) click javascript solution (not exactly manual I know). It's embedded in my monobook.js. I could probably extract it and help you install it if you can't. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and link. I will take a look and see if I can transfer over to my monobook. Dust Filter 23:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it to work - thanks again! Dust Filter 00:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You're going to have a lot of stuff you don't need, and should probably watch out for, like the vandalblock messages :) I'll work on a re-write in the near future so you can have just the sandbox part, or any other parts you like. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been going through the code getting rid of all the administrator related actions. I think I will retain some of your personal settings though - the RFPP, Speedy, Today's AfD, etc. links on the navigation menu are nice as are some of the options on the user talk tabs. But perhaps the best feature is that I now have a template of sorts, such that I can customize my screen as I see fit. Thanks Again :) Dust Filter 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, np. Take note that some things are also removed. You might also want to peruse my monobook.css. You can hopefully identify what elements it affects by viewing a Wikipedia page HTML source. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJESUS CHRISTT

Think he'll be back in seven days?

(nyucknyucknyuck...) HalfShadow 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I just magically stumbled across this guy anyway, so I doubt that I'll see another sock. However, if I do see one I'll report it to WP:AIV. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, The Hyb rid 10:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Newbies

I think I lost it a bit when the guy posted 5 messages in a row on my talk page asking me questions one after another. I think for me it's time for a wikibreak because I think I'm risking my sanity at this point. Thanks and I will re-read the links. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 14:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity is useful :) They also say a change is as good as a rest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was patroling the recent changes with eyes fused open for way too long. :D Change would be better as I couldn't stay away from wikipedia for more than a day. Maybe I'll try to master the art of creating userboxes in the next few days instead. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMERGENCY

URGENT: Thanks for looking at the vandalism on the entry for Douglas Anthony Cooper. I cannot stress how important it is that this page be fully protected: the vandal is a dangerous stalker, who has been following Cooper and his acquaintances for over a year. The vandalism here rises to a criminal level of libel/slander -- especially given that the stalker is UK-based, where libel laws are particularly strict. Any aid you can offer in tracking this man down would be appreciated. His IP address for the attacks is 200.78.117.244 -- this is Guadalajara (despite his past IP's locating him in London). Meaning that he has either crossed the ocean to pursue his victim in person (Cooper is in Mexico) or that he is using a proxy (illegal in Mexico).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.160.78.103 (talk • contribs).

It's an open (anonymous) proxy [4], available for use by anyone around the world. I'll be blocking it from editing for five years, although there are of course more. I've watchlisted the article and will continue to review the protection situation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. If you have any advice re: tracking this man down (we have a full log of threatening conversations, as well as a number of IP addresses in the UK), it would be appreciated. It's extremely difficult to get the London authorities to act in cases of cyberstalking (although someone in England was just jailed -- a first.)

There's not much I can offer. There are two relevant authorities - the police and to a lesser extent the ISP, I have to say neither take much seriously unless it's in their interest to do so (nevermind the interests of justice or anything like that). Beyond that, let me know if I can ever help clear up any mess he leaves on Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I´m told he is a serial vandal on wikipedia (and various other sites). Any way you can either erase the history on that article, or the entire article itself? I don't know when and what he's inserted in the past, and the history means that whatever libel is there will remain on wikipedia permanently (if only in the history -- but that's easily available to anyone).

I've had a quick look through the history and couldn't see anything untoward. The article has hardly been edited for the past year. We can remove edits (usually containing private info) from the history of the article, and I'll do that with today's edit, but we don't generally delete whole articles on notable people such as this. You may also want to see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also checked, and confirm the decision of my fellow--and more experienced-- administrator zzuuzz. If the article is vandalized further or the deleted material restored, we can and will protect the article. I really dont see how the information on what he has published can possibly help a stalker. Everything on our page at present is well known and well-sourced. DGG (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could you auto block and ACB LoudmouthBroadsNeedToKickedAlso as he seems like a sock of recently blocked users. Flubber5 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The autoblock was enabled and account creation blocked.[5] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you please approve our organisation - the specific page is List_of_marketing_research_firms. Please review Free-Research.com for verification. I have asked a couple of times with no response. Thank you. Luapnampahc 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Having reviewed the link I don't think I can. A commercial site requiring registration is rather contrary to the external link guidelines. Thanks anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Hosting Page

Hi Zzuuzz, I saw you edited out my contribution to the guild hosting page on wikipedia, and don't want to insert something back that is inappropriate, but am confused as to why it was removed. The section is about guild hosting, and history in particular, and GuildCafe GuildLaunch and MMO Guildsites each lauched within a couple months of each other and are all popular guild hosting services. Was what I wrote just deemed too markety? Thanks in advance.

Hello. The content was unfortunately phrased as if it was a press release, and in fact appears to have been sourced as such (from a blog too). It did not appear to meet WP:NPOV. You also appear to have a conflict of interest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly Zzuuzz, I do have a conflict of interest in this area and have just read through the links you provided so i will be careful of what I write there. Thanks for clearing up the reason why it was removed for me. -- nazgum

The external links guidelines may also be relevant. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Thanks for your post regarding Free-Research.com. So, for example, if Freshminds links to an internal page on wikipedia, this is OK. Therefore, if a profile of Free Research was created on wikipedia, with a link on this page referring to the internal link - that would be OK? This is what happens in the case of Freshminds .I would appreciate your guidance on this. Thank you very much. Luapnampahc 15:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the article you mentioned, though it does claim some notability including awards from the MRS. The guidelines for creating articles are at WP:CORP and WP:WEB. You should not create an article about something you're closely involved with. Please see the links in the discussion immediately above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

[6]

Hi, while the "logo" username may have been a bit borderline, the upper one certainly isn't a non-random sequence of characters!--Rambutan (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AP1SW? Please. It's five characters and even includes two vowels in the right places. Is it unnecessarily confusing is the question to be asked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only count one vowel (the A). P, S and W are consonants, and 1 is a number, as far as I remember.--Rambutan (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1337 is very common in usernames. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect

Hello, I noticed you've unprotected Asian people. If you can, please keep an eye on it and semi-protect again if anonymous IP vandalism returns. Thanks Ryaelt 15:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REVISE YOUR EXTERNAL LINKS POLICY:define inappropriate spamming

I want to know that what is your definition of spam. I believe that any link that helps people get their problem solved is not a spam. I have gone through a number of links that you have listed under the external links heading and they don not serve the purpose rather visitng them is just a waste of time. Thats the reason why I share my links on the external links where i feel that is appropriate and i dont see it as spam. As my intentions are just to help people. Not to put them in a devils circle of just visitng one site from another and find nothing of their interest or use. So please revise your policy regarding spaming.thankyou.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.2.162.253 (talk • contribs).

Hello, the links should meet the external links guidelines. A page full of useful adverts which help people get their problems solved is not really meritable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZZuuzz........ok I got you, but dear would you mind going through those sites whose links are placed by you under the external links heading on Brazilian waxing page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_waxing here I visited those links and they are all stuffed with adverts, which you think is not really meritable. So whats the point in placing such links which really dont serve the purpose??? those external links are no good at all.so why r they there??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.2.162.253 (talk • contribs).

The links weren't placed by me - I've removed them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure

As a non-admin, I can't see deleted pages and as such had no reason to believe that this was anything more than a repost. I'll try reopening it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TragicHeroine

Who's this guy a sock of? Wanted to know so I could annotate the {{sockpuppet}} tag appropriately. Blueboy 96 14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's 83.67.217.135 (talk · contribs). I'm kind of inclined to let the sockpuppetry go - it's the reverting that got the block. Hopefully should be autoblocked for a while. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Campbell 3RR

I was aware of that, but in all honestly I was paying less attention to how many reverts I was making than I was to trying to keep the article free from unfounded claims. Thanks. --81.179.78.4 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is every 3RR warrior :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising 2.0

Hello. I noticed you removed the speedy template from this article. Please note that consensus was reached at AfD today (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advertising 2.0 (2nd nomination)) to delete it. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was re-opened shortly after as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advertising 2.0 (3rd nomination). I suggest an admin closes the AfD this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

Why did you remove my complaint? Do you realise how long it took me to write that? --Paaneizaarlundereichen 10:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long exactly? Could you summarize it in a sentence or two? It was a help desk by the way, not the complaints department. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikidudeman! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection request

Hi. You said "It takes a lot of disruption to lock a talk page, and this article could benefit from the talk page being open."

I didn't want to lock the talk page, just semi-protect it so that an IP couldn't keep posting nonsense. There's no problem with your decision, but I wanted to make sure you were clear - you implied I wanted a full lock. John Smith's 11:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did realise that. Semi-protection is a full lock for unregistered editors, and this is always a last resort especially on talk pages. At least the user is attempting some discourse (despite the sockpuppetry it's not too disruptive). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage

Thanks for the revert! :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold-collar

Hey Zzuuzz, would you mind blanking the copyvio parts of the history of Gold-collar worker now that you have dealt with the vio. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's common practice to just revert recent copyvio additions, without necessarily deleting them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 22:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism revert on my talk page

Thanks! But it was kind of fun watching his struggle to come up with the perfect 1-line insult, and taking 8 edits to do it. One wonders what he would have managed to come up with if given enough time... --barneca (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean :) There comes a point though where it's just not worth listening anymore. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppets of Cz mike

Thanks for blocking these socks - you mentioned in your note to Isacc3go that you had reverted hisedits, but in fact they are still there. Isarig 01:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's just the template. I'll revert them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He now has a new sock - Moshe 230 Isarig 01:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already on it. Maybe sprotection will be useful for a day or two. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that would probably be useful on all the pages he's vandalized. Isarig 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations

Zzuuzz,

Today (or yesterday), you sent me the following message:

Thank you for experimenting with the page Joe on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Joe, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TigerShark 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

______________________________

Well, I would just like to say that I did not vandalize the page in question, and someone obviously shares my IP address. So please, don't accuse me of vandalism; I believe that Wikipedia is a fantastic entity and I would not dream of ruining it for others.

Regards,

James Wright

84.67.51.87 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James. I sent someone that message five weeks ago. As you say, it was addressed to someone else. You can avoid such messages in the future by creating an account (or getting a static non-shared IP). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts in removing vandalism on the England article (amongst many others)! Jza84 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jza84! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Well, how you would ask the question? Are you a homo? How is that vandalize? It was just are you a homo? Where I live this is OK. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.143.147 (talk • contribs)

Your question has no relevance here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer freely with me. Thanki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.182.118 (talk • contribs)

I refer you to my previous answer. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Falkjdfjalfdjlklkjlkafdsjlkdfjklafdjlk;dlkj

Might want to block his secondaries as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Falkjdfjalfdjlklkjlkafdsjlkdfjklafdjlk%3Bdlkj HalfShadow 23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yep. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blame society for him. That means it's everyone's fault. Except mine, of course. HalfShadow 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]