User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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.

tb

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moutmoutpaulie

That was quick :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Districts, Austria, Switzerland

Ref. to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_tools_required_to_revert_mass_move - More specific than WP:AT is WP:NCGN. See Talk:District#Article_naming - "X (district)" is only used by German speaking countries. I strongly object that they get there own way of article naming. They can do so in de:WP, but not here in en:WP. Schwyz (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found something "funny" - newbie needs help

Hi zzuuzz, thanks very much for your help with the NoCharge stuff I posted at the Admin noticeboard the other day. I wanted to thank you for your input.

I ran accross a user that added stuff about an "affair" to a WP:BLP and uploaded a copywrited file to commons. The file and description came from here. I checked their contributions and all their edits seemed "funny" to me. Like placing an "editprotected" tag on their talk page after they got a warning and adding a "rant" section to a WikiProject. Could you have a look please? Thanks very much. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

88.241.174.108

Can you please block? Block evasion. Thank you Tommy! [message] 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reblocked, and from looking at the rbl listings I wouldn't be surprised if it was a proxy. I'd say if you concur, reblock for the standard length with talkpage access allowed and semiprotect the talkpage for a couple days. Or let me know and I'll do it. Syrthiss (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to ask if it was a proxy as it was used to immediately evade a block. Thanks, Tommy! [message]
I'll take another look, but they seem to be all dynamic Turkish IPs (see these). -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do turkeys really even need to post? ;) Ok, thats reasonable. Syrthiss (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may need to do another range block for a longer amount of time. Tommy! [message] 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Special:Contributions/88.242.230.85 is back. Tommy! [message] 11:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it looks like its stopped, so who knows. Tommy! [message] 17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was rangeblocked at the time (see links above). If it reoccurs just point any admin to those ranges (or ANI) and ask for the same short blocks again. They're fairly effective. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought it to ANI with some of his latest IPs. Tommy! [message] 09:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Hazard-SJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hazard-SJ Talk 06:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zzuuzz. You have new messages at Hazard-SJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hazard-SJ Talk 06:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Zzuuzz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Basil Yamey - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Head Theatre ‎

Hello Zzuuzz. Thanks for your message and action taken.I do apologise for rebuttal I've written in my edits on the King's Head Wiki page. However, I did not have any other chance to fight back in order to clear the names of my staff and mine from those slanderous accussations that were published on Wiki, together with other several lies that were or are written on that page. The lies, such as the Theatre's seating capacity were increased or other twisted facts such as "The atmosphere Crawford created in 1970, which was intended to be enjoyed by an interesting, cosmopolitan and cultural audience. It remains so to this day, with live music many nights of the week. Council interference and noise complaints have limited the music from its previous 7 nights a week." are however not threatening nobody's reputation - maybe only the writer's one, which is not my concern. I'll be dealing with any possible future slander in other way, taking the legal action against defamation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juraj2008 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, I understand, and I hope it's been cleaned up to your satisfaction (minor errors notwithstanding). Hopefully those particular allegations won't be repeated, but in the event they are they should be swiftly removed completely again. The protection I've applied means all edits will be carefully scrutinised for at least the next month. I'll try and keep an eye on it, but like I say, please get in touch if it happens again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Hi, I just started using Twinkle. What does Rollback AGF mean? Látches (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (AGF) in Rollback (AGF) means 'Assume Good Faith' - Happysailor (Talk) 13:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whats an assume good faith? Látches (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF for good faith edits which aren't vandalism. I would not recommend using Twinkle until you're had more experience. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the page I need to read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Látches (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of them. WP:AGF and WP:BITE are more relevant. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's a tool I can use to check pages instead of looking through recent changes and pressing diff? Látches (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The navigation popups gadget in your preferences will fill that role. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

protocol

Hi, I am wanting to open this at midnight, Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Vote_comment, do you see any major problems? Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than it's a vote and you want to open it already? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other than that...Its not a vote its a choice between three options after a lengthy trial and a fair bit of discussion already, there is no policy involved at all, often I have seen issues swamped in discussion at wiki, imo its good to go. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to open it at midnight and notify all the people that have commented in the discussion already, that is around fifty and notify a few noticeboards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a vote ;-) I'm not convinced that a simple head count is the way to go as there are still valid and invalid arguments, indeed some complete misunderstandings, and there'll probably be more when a vote is advertised. On the other hand if you fix the target you can often get a more representative vote. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy check again

Could you please check 99.98.165.151 (talk · contribs)? Elockid (Talk) 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I checked it. There are no open ports. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::Wrong IP. I meant 76.126.79.117 (talk · contribs). Elockid (Talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about it. I should have geolocated first instead of searching on Google. Elockid (Talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Neither look very open anyway. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about 193.194.83.31 (talk · contribs)? Elockid (Talk) 13:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed yes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about 213.0.89.13 (talk · contribs)? Elockid (Talk) 03:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Elockid (Talk) 23:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 69.196.158.36 (talk · contribs) and 124.254.137.93 (talk · contribs)? Elockid (Talk) 11:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check 202.62.124.35 (talk · contribs)? Elockid (Talk) 23:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a normal Fijian dynamic IP, no signs of open proxyness. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Okay, thanks for checking. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Core Skills Test

We edit-conflicted twice but, yes, your version is better. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oops

Sorry, your revert to Mary Shelly reinstated a poor version and I blindly reverted it little realising you had quickly fixed that. All is good now;-)--ClubOranjeT 11:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm still not entirely sure how that revision got there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

You did the right thing unblocking those ranges. Thanks for letting me know. I now have this nimrod following the goings-on and he's now hit me at Wikia. I e-mailed Wikia to please shut down all my legit accounts and a few imposter accounts there; I have better things to do with my free time. Take care.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proxy block

OK, How'd you recognize it as a proxy server? Thanks, Dlohcierekim 18:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years of experience of dealing with trolls ;-) Try this, visit the site, check the IP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll be dipped in spit. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coqskr

Anyone you know? Dlohcierekim 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, could be anyone, who knows? They didn't mention their complaint so there's nothing to consider further. I've probably previously blocked them for vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/90.209.222.248

Thanks for your input over there. It is disappointing that the IP ranges are too wide to be considered for blocking, but I can respect the decision. Maybe I'll give it a second attempt later if it keeps up, although this is not in my tangible plans; maybe I won't. I guess all I can do for now is hope that there isn't as much trouble from the IP ranges henceforth, because that situation of the genre warrioring from those particular IPs has been getting pretty stale. Happy editing. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That one that you pointed out as a typo seems most definitely like one, since there are no user contributions behind it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello!

See Message Below

Verified User

Hello Tnxman! I realized that you contribute heavily at open proxies, I also realized that you are in fact an administrator here. I was wondering, would i be able to become a verified user to make sure IP's that are reported are in fact proxies? I'm a computer networking genius and i know all about networking (changing your IP Address, etc.) you name it, i know it. Also, if you've noticed, i've been contributing heavily at the project. If i cannot become a verified user, please let me know the requirements as i am interested. Thanks, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could say I knew more about the process. I only began contributing there recently and I don't feel I know enough to make a recommendation one way or another. The two people who I saw contributing there before I did were User:Gordonrox24 and User:Zzuuzz. I think they would be better equipped to answer your question about being a verified user. If there are any other questions, though, please let me know. TNXMan 01:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for helping out. Please read the main page :) Before verifying I would expect to see more of your familiarity with the verification process. This is a list of questions, whereas a verifiable user would provide some context to the type of proxy and how to verify it, clues about the type and confidence of the verification check, any estimates of longevity, the things you don't know, etc. Then the same with a variety of proxies. I'll take another look when there's a few we can discuss further. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EF 58

Not sure why that happened - I tested it and everything. Sorry, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of website

I'm not sure what sort of verification you need for a website? According to WHOIS, CarmarthenQuinSrfc.co.uk is registered to Carmarthen Quins, I can't think of any situation where someone would print a RS that says "this is the real site" - so I'm a bit baffled how that would be resolved. As far as I can determine the other site is hold by someone they previous had to manage their website and then they had a payment dispute. Can you think of how we'd find a RS to settle it either way? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See 'related' links at [1]. One site is registered to Carmarthen Quins, the other to Carmarthen Quins RFC - both registered as private individuals. That, to me, is worthless. I'd hope either the site gets sorted, or someone somewhere says that this is the new site. It's the age old WP:V in action - we always get this problem with MySpace and Twitter links. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure if this is the correct manner or/and place to discuss this topic and so I apologise if I am wrong to do so. As the website designer of "carmarthenquinsrfc.co.uk" I have noted the domain registration complaint above and have updated the details accordingly. I understand that all news sites (including the BBC and Sky) refer to the website "carmarthenrfc.co.uk" as the official, as do other official rugby websites (namely premiership clubs and the WRU), however, where possible, I am aiming to have these links updated to reflect the change in domain. Normally I would simply repoint the old domain to the new but, due to a dispute, the previous domain name is under the control of an external third party to the Carmarthen Quins RFC, who, against what he states on both the website "carmarthenrfc.co.uk" and in emails to various organisations, does not have the authority or permission to represent the Carmarthen Quins in any official capacity. Thanks you for your assistance in trying to resolve this matter. Owen -- Oddballo (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This place is as good as any, though some discussion should eventually find its way to the talk page of the article itself (things can take time around here). Having looked in a bit more depth I suggest two things in this situation: first, the former link does not get used again until such time as it's functional again, and secondly the newer link should probably be used in the article, though I am hesitant to encourage its description as 'official' until it can be shown to be official. One of my pet dislikes on Wikipedia is multiple things being called official; there have been too many instances of deceit, external feuding, and spam to be reckless about it. To move forward I would suggest that some discussion happens on the talk page of the article, and if there's a consensus for the newer link, then it gets restored. But some independent verification would be ideal. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

open proxy project

I would like to help out at the open proxy project. My Edit count is probably too low to become a verified user at this point (or is it?). However, I used one of the templates on the project page which led to the case being closed and archived by a bot. I just wanted to make sure that isn't a problem.

I watch-listed the unchecked proxy page. If I contribute information there, should I refrain from use the templates at the top until I become a verified user? Sailsbystars (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes I did notice that :) Fortunately Ed had already dealt with it satisfactorily. I would suggest not using the templates because they archive everything so quickly, and there is usually no hurry to declare an IP not open (eg see this one which took 2 weeks to verify). I notice some other issues with your comments: many many open proxies are DSL, some have downtime, and some even have no open ports. However don't let that put you off. People offering wisdom on proxy checks are welcome. I would suggest reading this and this and I look forward to your further participation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:InkHeart

Just last week you blocked some IPs and an account, that were socks of InkHeart. Well, he's back and basically confirmed that fact here. This is the other IP 72.20.28.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). 夢追人YumeChaser 03:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, they've been taken care of. I blocked a whole pile of InkHeart proxies earlier yesterday. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you blocked a couple of the IPs who commented at the move discussion over at Talk:Jessica (entertainer). I can open an SPI if you prefer, but looking at recent comments there it would seem that InkHeart is still among us. PC78 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Discussion On Me(Kagome_85) PLEASE READ!!!!!!

Although I know you might delete this and refuse to reply to it given that another user has been deleting my posts claiming how I am not allowed to post since I'm banned, I think you should listen to me, given that a user is harassing me(the one that started the discussion on me). This is what I posted on the Wikipedia thread that was removed: Although I know that this account will be banned for "sockpuppetry" or "evasion of block" or whatever, I just want to point out have you thought to see if these accounts created to say how the account Kagome_85 should have a sitewide ban MIGHT be related to Moukity? Kagome_85 is my account, but these accounts created to say there should be a sitewide ban are not. If an IP trace was done you would find that this account and the accounts made to say there should be a sitewide ban put on me probably start with 142., but you would also see that the rest of the digits that follow my account and the ones that follow the accounts made to say there should be a sitewide ban put in place on me are different. I know you may say that any user that is guilty would say that, however, I am pointing that out since a.) I am not stupid enough to go on here saying you should put a sitewide ban on me by using a different account since I know you can trace it and b.) Why would I go make another account to report something I did on another account when I know that would just get me in trouble since I can get caught? and c.) Why would I go linking to a news article about me when I don't want people to know about it? I'm not looking for attention or anything like some people are.

I hope that you consider what I said since I felt I should point out the fact that Moukity could(and more than likely is) be behind these new accounts made to say that I should be banned from the site permanently. Anyway, feel free to ban this account as you probably will, but I'll be putting the retirement sign on it anyway since you can be guaranteed I won't be using this anymore. By the way, the only reason I found this post was that I went to check the Incidents Noticeboards for something on another topic that I was told about that has nothing to do with me, so you can't say that I had any knowledge of this thread because I never, if you looked at the date that this post was made you would see that. Please, I implore you, to do an investigation into the accounts that started this discussion on me, and see if they were made by Moukity (a.k.a. Blackmagic1234). If you see this, then you will know that he is at fault as well. Sango 42 (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. I'll be frank: I have no interest and I'll block any and all accounts associated with this mess. If you're feeling harassed then go away. If you're doing the harassing then go away. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I made a change to a page to correct some factually incorrect information and you changed it back to its prior (incorrect) state, and accused me of vandalism. The Wikipedia definitions of vandalism do not include correcting incorrect information. Please justify your actions. Leebarden (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have confused him with a cricket almanack. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to not have done your research correctly. I suggest you read the BBC obituary as well as that of the NY Times.Leebarden (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Adambro

Thank you for your assistance in dealing with some of the recent problems with my talk page. Adambro (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy still open?

According to this, 207.28.249.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for 3 months as an open proxy. The block just expired, and their first edits are not encouraging. Is the proxy still open or should I just issue a nice long anonblock? Favonian (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Shall I do the honours? -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. You're the acknowledged authority on proxies. Favonian (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardblocked to the end of the school year. And now there's someone else I should notify... -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock of User:Rosenthal88

Hello, The IP address 109.255.11.155 has made numerous edits which appear to match edits made by the aforementioned user and his sockpuppets. For example:

Based on this evidence, would you think it wise to block this IP as well?

Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am working on the assumption that this IP, though static for 2 weeks, has likely been reassigned by now. The latest IP (109.255.61.29 (talk · contribs · block log)) has been blocked for a week, as that's my guess for how long it will remain assigned to this user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses used for vandalism

Hi. I saw this edit and I'm agreed that this should be the purpose of that category as you can see here. Unfortunately, it is not being used to list only those adresses repeatedly blocked and a few IP that made only some vandalisms and had never been blocked are listed there. In my opinion, it is being misused and the page ends by not being useful. What do you think about it? Regards.” TeLeŞ(PT @ L C G) 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first tweak. Just trying to reduce the misuse a little, after seeing it applied to a dynamic IP which was used for the first time for 11 minutes and blocked for 24 hours (probably reassigned already). My opinion is that the category should have been deleted a long time. I'm not sure why it hasn't been - it's closely tied to {{repeat vandal}} which has been kept at TfD, I think more than once. Any deletion proposal will have to carefully overcome the "tag all IPs as vandals because, I don't know, it's really useful or it'll get them banned quicker, or something" mentality. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it could be useful somehow if it were used correctly. Some of the listed ones never were blocked. Thanks for your opinion anyway. Regards.” TeLeŞ(PT @ L C G) 06:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible open proxy

Another one: 89.207.215.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just been blocked for a week on account of vandalism. It has previously been blocked as an open proxy, so maybe a longer block is in order. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently listed as an open proxy on any blacklists, but it is listed in several blacklists for linkspam [2] and other malicious actions over the past month. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have remained open until a few weeks ago, whence it may have closed (or moved), or maybe not. It's a bit inconclusive, not helped by it being an exit server, so the open proxy is actually on a different IP address. The proxy using it, 89.207.211.66 is currently down, so today's users are almost certainly just schoolkids. But I'll keep checking to see if 89.207.211.66 comes back up. It seems probable that it won't have moved if it's still open... -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin3020

Thanks for that block. I was writing up an ANI report, but as often happens you got there first. He's been doing similar edits for two years, so I'm not sure how he skated that long. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I am sorry about this edit[3], it was an accidental click of "rollback" that I could not stop in time. I cannot believe how long that rubbish pasted from Varna sat there unnoticed. I did revert myself though. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's more amazing how many before you did restore it :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Zzuzz, I didn't catch what you meant with your above statement!!? Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
edit summary. Once upon a time, not that long ago in fact, my attention was brought to an article that had been the subject of disruptive reverting for quite some time. It turned out that a banned vandal was attempting to remove some rather obvious vandalism that they had put in the article six months previously. For three months they tried to remove it, sometimes even being very explicit about how it got there, and every time they were met with Huggle users simply saying 'reverted edit by x to last version by y'. I wandered in, said 'removed crap', and no one blinked an eye lid. The article has been stable ever since. True story! -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is wierd. First the IP restores it, but it appears to a recent-change officer to be blanking, then the same IP messes about and removes larger chunks of text. I've just noticed. I think the correct term is called schizophrenia!!!! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New filter

The da Vinci Barnstar
For implementing the new FA redirect filter. - Pointillist (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! JodyB talk 13:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this "Sooaap" person? Any idea? I've seen similar vandalism here and there but never really took notice of who was doing it to whom until now. —Soap— 14:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I couldn't really say for sure - they tend to sort of copy each other and blend into a single homogeneous blocking target. If someone told me their ISP I could probably nail it down to a familiar name, but otherwise it could be one of many. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for catching that. Sometimes I wish there was an equivalent to the "orange bar" for userpages...! TFOWR 14:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tor nodes

Hello Zzuuzz. What's the rationale for leaving Tor nodes unblocked? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one? There's an extension,[4] but it's either extremely buggy or currently disabled. That would be the only one I can think of, but it's too buggy a rationale to rely on. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My question is about 'Very few Tor nodes should be blocked long term..' from your comment here. Is your reasoning that they could be taken out of the Tor network? If a long block is not appropriate, what block length would you suggest? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. Almost all Tor nodes are closed within a month. Half stop running Tor after they've tried it once, and the other half are on dynamic IP addresses. My comment was an agreement - as the IP is in a server static range, with reverse DNS and everything, a long block is appropriate. A rarity - I've seen about twenty such IPs in all my time here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies at Fallout 2

Some more have popped up since you last blocked a few of them. Also page protection has been requested for the article to try and deal with this problem. Momo san Gespräch 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Reference Desk Barnstar
For your patience and good grace when dealing with my vague and silly question PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros

It's also copyvio. If you need another reason.HalfShadow 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) So many problems in so few edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, if it looks too good, I run the first paragraph through Google. You'd be surprised how effective this is. HalfShadow 19:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More possible open proxies

I presume that you'll check. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put down a range block. It's obviously an anonymiser, though it's not clear which one. This range is only being used by this troll, and only recently. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again

the same editor that you just protected Talk:Jessica (entertainer) from just tried creating the RFC at Talk:Jessica Jung Probably should be protected also. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

96.45.189.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the editor GB fan is referring to. He also copied and paste the discussion to Talk:Hyuna. 夢追人YumeChaser 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP address still editing?

Hi there, The contributions page says this IP address - Special:Contributions/78.131.55.151 - was blocked by you, but it's still hitting the Teardrop trailer page?

Any ideas why that's happenign?

Thanks.

a_man_alone (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Zzuuzz, but I saw this message and I think I can answer. It looks like he placed the block 4 minutes after the last edit. It's apparently a proxy, though, which means it likely isn't the user's "real" IP address, and that he may have another one ready. (Though it looks like you're aware of that as you've been editing the page for quite a while). —Soap— 22:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, 4 minutes after it edited. It's a confirmed open proxy, as are most of the other recent ones on that page (check their contribs to see). Per WP:PROXY, confusingly, that doesn't necessarily mean the user is blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, sorry gents - you are of course correct. I was pretty sure that the IP was already banned, but having looked closer, it was this ip - 208.76.107.190 - that was banned I had noticed. Yes, there seems to be some kind of perverse determination on that Teardrop page, but I'm (mostly) a patient guy. a_man_alone (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the time on this block

The time looks odd on 204.185.4.253 (talk · contribs). If I read it right, your block today has already expired. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Doesn't look like it expires until 2013 - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2013-10-29T13:20:46Z, Doug? Syrthiss (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[waits for Doug to take another look] :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleans glasses, oh yes, now I see it. Sigh. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:) Syrthiss (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proxy?

Hi Zzuuzz. Could you have a look at 202.168.237.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Looks like one of our favorite whackjobs, who now feels lonely after I protected Prophecy of the Popes. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a blocking conflict there :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he was getting "repetitive", so I had to take temporary measures. Thanks for the more permanent solution! Favonian (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major BLP Libel Issue

Hello, I noticed you were online so I thought you might be able to remove the revisions by User:Tommer419 like this one [5] . They contain major libel issues. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done? Either a compromised account, or it's American election season again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! Thanks! (It's our Congressional elections in four days....) Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Since you are involved in the recent abuse of Tor, you may be interested in this ongoing bot approval request. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zzuuzz, thanks for your comments. I think I've addressed your concerns, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my response at your earliest convenience. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice?

You previously blocked an IP for an attempted outing as a result of an ANI report I filed. The editor is still being harassed on his talk page by a user, User:Bytemeh, who is apparently affiliated with the blocked IP and the whole Emily Schooley AfD fiasco. This same user also filed a frivolous Wikiquette report against the account being harassed. Is there anything that can be done to stop the continuous harassment against the Deepsix66 account? I have no opinion as to whether the account that is being harassed is affiliated with a specific company as Bytemeh alleges, but the fact is that he has denied any connection and should not have to keep being hounded and subject to attempted outings. As it is a new account I'm unsure if he is aware of his options; it would be unfortunate to lose a new and productive editor over this.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed at first sight it does look troubling. I'd have to read a bit more about the behaviour of both parties later. It may be necessary to impose some sort of interaction, talk page, or topic ban, either through ANI or unilaterally. Perhaps if I stressed again to both parties how easily bored admins get about off-wiki disputes. I find I tend to quite blunt about such things, but that others can be more diplomatic about it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you could do to try to lessen the consistent hounding of DeepSix would be appreciated. He (or she) has managed to stay quite civil throughout, but I'm assuming their patience does have a limit. The original Emily Schooley Afd, the two subsequent deletion reviews, the Wikiquette alert, and Deepsix66's talk page reveal a lot about the nastiness of the dispute. Note that I am completely uninvolved when it comes to the Emily Schooley debacle; I simply stumbled upon this can of worms when I added a welcome template to DeepSix66's talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cans of worms and off-wiki disputes. I'll probably have a word with Bytemeh, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurecon doesn't seem to have helped. Not sure what to make of that yet. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, another meat/sock-fest AfD in the making. I find it interesting that Bytemeh admitted to switching accounts when they wrote "does this mean I will have to switch user names again to avoid having all my submissions put up for deletion?" near the bottom of the AfD. Please let me know if I can help in any way. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Carlo Salinas

Hello, this is Jean-Carlo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Carlo Salinas (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's up? I want to leave Roma, Texas because it sucks. And I miss Chicago, Illinois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Carlo Salinas (talk • contribs)
May I suggest the train? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about proxies

Based on this diff, how do you reach that conclusion? I'm really curious. I think he has four anonymous edits. Is there a technical tool to use? How do you differentiate it from a normal ip editor? JodyB talk 17:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I conclude that it's a dedicated server range, offering servers hosting and VPS, with VPN ports open, and with a nail-in-the-coffin recent edit by proxy-using User:InkHeart in the middle of it. This may or may not be an open proxy range, but it's almost certainly being used as an anonymising proxy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to pick your brain a little further, how do you know about the VPS and VPN open ports? I see the WHOIS and the dedicated server part. JodyB talk 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mixture of DUCK and BEANS. More DUCK than BEANS, but a plate full of protein nonetheless. If you're interested in further general reading on the subject might I suggest this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's the kind of info I was looking for. JodyB talk 23:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360 technical problems

After the expiration of your semi-protection of Xbox 360 technical problems, a (the) spammer has simply resumed spamming. Maybe its an idea to blacklist the site he's spamming for, otherwise, I fear, he simply won't stop spamming. Regards Mahjongg (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have time, would you please look at the case of the continuing edit war over at dingoo, where a mainland china and hongkong editor seem to fight over the "ownership" of a link to the "main website" in the article, they daily revert each others edits, that isn't so much a problem, as its is irritating, but one of the side-effects is that they also damage the page, which the bot User:EdoBot (or another editor) then repairs. Its going on for months on an almost daily basis. I have no idea what can be done, I tried to report the edit war, but my report was ignored (maybe I did something wrong?), in any case I don't know what (if anything) can be done, both parties post anonymous, using changing IP-addresses. Mahjongg (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very nearly blacklisted the link last time, but will do next time. Let's just see for a bit if it continues. The dingoo page is suffering a classic revert war. I'll add some semi in a while if it doesn't settle down. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mahjongg (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Hello! I´m new at this Wikipedia stuff, but I really would like some help. My teacher in English class (user:Thelmadatter)) give the assigment on writing an article. We wrote about street marketing and I would like to ask for your help. Can you please check the article and make some comments in the talk page.

Thanks a lot! Theoneinblue (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for protecting my talk page, that should stop our troll who doesnt seem to be giving up--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only Hamish Ross. Just ignore him entirely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zzuuzz/Archive_21&oldid=1139344741"