User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 27
|
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. |
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Protect request
Could you please protect LeTourneau University. CLCStudent (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I think so. I'd prefer the article is straightened out at the same time... I'm just checking... -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Signpost exit poll
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?
If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.
All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian
The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
|
|---|
|
|
Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).
how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
|
|---|
Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) |
We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Sawone1
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User talk:Sawone1, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cahk (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk page access
BlueSoz is going to need talk page access revoked per ... phewww, thanks for that -- samtar whisper 13:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit Quest!
|
Edit Quest! |
| Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 14:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Apology
Hello, Zzuuzz
I Just want to Apologize that I'm Sorry that I was Vandalizing Without a Permission and I Just want to know and Proven that Relgious Fundementalists are Proven to be Homosexuals according to CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.84.136 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
...And a happy New Year!
.jpg)
GABHello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
All the best,
GABHello! 22:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You're on it like a car bonnet this evening  -- samtar whisper 17:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
|
Thanx.
Hello Zzuuzz, thanks for reverting [1] my Usertalkpage. When I click in my History on "Thank", it says "Send public thanks for this edit? Yes No", do you know what the difference between these 2 actually is, i.e. what is "public thanks"? Cheers, Poepkop (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Clicking no cancels the "thanking", yes sends the notification. The "public" side of it refers to the fact they are logged at Special:Log/thanks
Have a good Christmas -- samtar whisper 17:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- What I don't understand is why zzuuzz doesn't thank me for giving him the opportunity to use his tools like NUKE and so on. I present a simple target rather than ones where all the edits would laboriously have to be gone through hand by hand to validate their usefulness to the 'pedia or anything. In the spirit of Christmas, I think zzuuzz and I should have a virtual hug... *outstretches arms*... 81.158.98.153 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Y'know, that is considerate of you! your poem could do with some work though ~6/10 would revert again
-- samtar whisper 17:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well it was off the cuff and I've never been much of a poet anyway. If you can help me come up with something for new year I'd be ever so pleased. You can be as creative as you like so long as it gets across the main message that user talk page will be given a jolly good showing for reasons hinted at but not fully explained. 81.158.98.153 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unregistered editors cannot receive thanks :p -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Y'know, that is considerate of you!
- What I don't understand is why zzuuzz doesn't thank me for giving him the opportunity to use his tools like NUKE and so on. I present a simple target rather than ones where all the edits would laboriously have to be gone through hand by hand to validate their usefulness to the 'pedia or anything. In the spirit of Christmas, I think zzuuzz and I should have a virtual hug... *outstretches arms*... 81.158.98.153 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
_(14586469407).jpg)
MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.
- Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Zzuuzz as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 18:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Cuban Megatron
Thanks for blockin gCuban Megatron. I've tagged his user page as an attack page. Please look at its history. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Protection
Hello! As you know, starship9000 has launched a sock campaign against my userpage. Do you advise protecting it, or just letting the socks give themselves away? It really doesn't bother me much. Thanks, GABHello! 02:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Sure does make it easy to find 'em, just by watching your Talk page. Like shootin' fish in a barrel.
General Ization Talk 02:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a narcissist, so I do kinda like the attention. And it might conceivably divert him from causing serious havoc. Still... Protection may either send him to cause trouble elsewhere or just make him bored and leave. GABHello! 02:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I could cordon off a little zone for them to have fun, or just point them to spi for the block. GABHello! 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think RBI might be the best solution all round, however I'll keep an eye on protecting your pages if necessary, or if you get too bored of it. In my experience any user who wants to be reported at SPI, or has too much fun with their usernames, should be neither tagged nor reported at SPI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year Zzuuzz!
.jpg)
Zzuuzz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
.
- Happy new year @Zzuuzz:! BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you think?
Hello Zzuuzz. Should talk page access be removed for Supdiopisawesome (talk · contribs). Per WP:BMB they shouldn't be editing at all. If you are okay with the post on that page then that is fine by me. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think we can live without it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Would you mind taking a look at removing talk page access for this one as well. This is part of this nest of socks Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigshowandkane64/Archive#25 December 2015. I'm not happy with my username being used in this fashion but I can deal with that. OTOH I would like the attack messages on the page to stop. I know that you aren't familiar with this situation so if you don't want to deal with it that is okay too. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. It is much appreciated. A new odd thing is now taking place with the edits by 52.88.156.154 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure what they are on about but they are giving out an email address which may or may not be theirs. MarnetteD|Talk 03:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Would you mind taking a look at removing talk page access for this one as well. This is part of this nest of socks Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigshowandkane64/Archive#25 December 2015. I'm not happy with my username being used in this fashion but I can deal with that. OTOH I would like the attack messages on the page to stop. I know that you aren't familiar with this situation so if you don't want to deal with it that is okay too. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Requesting rollback
The user Helmoony is mass-removing "Tunisian arabic" in articles that was in place since several months. after the debate in Tunisia portal in september, an admin finally decided to grant the mention of Tunisian arabic for the names of people and places. Things were so settled since then, but the user Helmoony is recently removing all the mentions, could you please do something about it ? Thank you.Zangouang (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Requested Revdel
You recently blocked the user who vandalised my talk page but I am requesting revdel as RD3. Nevermind you already did it 
. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Vanishing act
Thanks making those disappear. — JJMC89 (T·C) 11:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Protection
Should I make a request to semi-protect my talk page because of the recent vandalism? Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yours is just one of many pages being targeted at the same time, so I doubt its usefulness, however you can ask at RFPP if you're finding it tedious. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you please block the user indefinitely, because same editing as multiple IPs from Italy, including Special:Contributions/82.51.122.43, Special:Contributions/82.53.179.230 both which has been blocked in 31 hours. 115.164.221.103 (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandals_of_pages_music, Giubbotto non ortodosso -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Angry IP
Hi Zzuuzz, maybe you should block his ability to edit his/her own Usertalkpage as well, to prevent further personal attacks [2]? Poepkop (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh well, now he blanked the page again. Well, that is better than personal attacks. Only the nasty edit sumamries remain? Poepkop (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
IP sock on your block
Based on this the IP whose edit I just reverted on your talk page is probably a sock of the nearly identical IP user:175.142.163.119 who you recently blocked for similar vandalism on the same article. Meters (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see from the previous thread that he's been after you before. Meters (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking at this user's contributions, I certainly see the reinstatement here as disruptive, but I think there's a reasonable interpretation of this as nothing more than naive, especially considering the edit summary. I'd like to unblock and give them another chance - what do you think? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are welcome to unblock, as I expect they won't do that again. I should mention there are some concerns about multiple accounts[3]. Still, in the meantime, be my guest. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thanks - I'll unblock, but I'll keep an eye on contributions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Zzuuzz. I just wanted to make you aware of this SPI. The user who vandalised my talk page is a suspected sock of the user above. Class455fan1 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, slightly ahead of you :) I've already left a comment there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Joemcphilly1962
Someone, possibly a sock of User:IHeardFromBob, has set up an account named User:Joemcphilly1962, days after Joemcphilly1961 was blocked. 64.134.188.247 (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
UAA
Hello Zzuuzz, I saw you are regularly blocking at UAA. I sometimes come across Usernames of which it is not clear to me, if they would need to be reported to UAA for review = if they are (near) "blatant violations"?
(1) names that seem to imply shared use by private people, e.g. "JohnAndMarian", or, "Harry&Anna". Seemingly these are noncommercial, private accounts perhaps from couples who want to use a single account for both of them, but is this allowed by the "no shared use" policy?
- These are fairly clearly not allowed under policy. As they are normally good faith, it is polite to point them to the policy and ask them to reconsider.
(2) Names containing the word "Troll" (and seemingly intended to mean "troll" indeed, not as perhaps part of an exotic name)?
- I've rarely seen a good editor with a name containing troll. Typically their first edit will indicate their intentions.
(3) as (2) but the word "Hacker"?
- People who think they're hacking wikipedia, or the Internet, as they usually do, generally don't turn out well. However, hacker by itself is not a problem.
(4) what is the difference (in the User creation log) between " User ... was created" and "User ... was created automatically"?
- Created automatically means they created their account on another language Wikipedia, and got auto-logged in at this one. (See: WP:SUL)
(5) Sometimes I see a promotional Useraccount that created a promotional userpage that meanwhile already has been deleted per CSD, but the User name is not blocked yet: should this still be blocked (reported) or left alone (he/she might come in again)?
- For me, it depends on whether they get the message when their article is deleted. On the other hand, some company names are more of a problem than others. You can tell a lot by the admin deleting the article but not blocking the username. They will have seen it.
(6) Names that are clearly offensive in the language they are written, but that language not being English? The policy does not mention this at all?
- You will know (or would have known) from WP:RFCN. I think it depends how egregious the translation is. For the record I would not have blocked your username, but I did wonder why you would pick it.
Thanks, Horseless Headman (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC).
- No problem. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi zzuuzz, thank you. As to (6), my name is based on the headless horseman, but I thought Horseless Headman sounds a bit less spooky :-) But you are probably talking about my old name, right? It was something we used to call each other if someone did something very simple wrong, but was not considered offensive. Anyway, long discussions with lots of links to discussions elsewhere too in my archive number 2 if you are interested (in other words, it sounds "worse" imho in English then it ever did to us). The reason I asked now again is that a few days ago there was a name based on "Puta madre" [4] (now blocked) but I also (not often though) see offensife names in (again) Dutch [5] (meaning as much as "shitty kids / shitkids / bloody kids" (not blocked), and some other languages I know. I did see there is some list with words that is or were blocked directly at creating, e.g. the German "Scheiße" (eq. shit). Oh well, an interesting aspect of WP it is for sure :-) Cheers Horseless Headman (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC).
- Yes I meant your old name. Us admins see more than you may realise. So we have MediaWiki:Titleblacklist and m:Title blacklist for light reading. Lots of offensive usernames will probably slip past everyone, including admins, which is like no one hearing if a tree falls in a forest. On the other hand, someone sometime may get offended. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that was the list I saw before somewhere sometime, thanks for the link ;-) "Us admins see more than you may realise", you mean, like this (youtube, videoclip, safe for work etc.) [6]? Iiiiiiiiiiii........ Horseless Headman (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC).
- Hello Zzuuzz, what about the following category of names (both from today): [7], [8]. In itself no problem, but some people may either think it (somewhat) offensive that someone "must" make their religious viewpoints known to others - in a place where it actually should not matter, and/or (2) it might imply NPOV would be difficult if editing on a.o. religious subject pages. Wait for them to edit, I guess? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC).
- Usually, I would suspect their competence and impartiality in most cases. Personally I am not too fanatic about blocking pro-religious names which aren't too strong and don't set out to offend - is it much different to having a username suggesting you're an atheist, or a Muslim, or believe in a flat earth, ghosts, or some other superstition? Yes, I'd usually wait for the edits. For example, this plum from today. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Haha, total confusion, well, that plum is now in the pudding anyway! "Flat earth"? No, the earth is round, it is absolutely totally round, as round as a pancake. Yes, I agree with what you say, with one exception, that I undoubtedly misunderstood, you say: "..believe in.. ghosts, or some other superstition ..". So, are you sorta saying, all these gothic novels are just fiction??!? No Will-o'-the-wisp, no ghosts in the night, no ... headless horseman?? Horseless Headman (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC).
Thanks
Obviously, this is one area that I've had a bit of difficulty telling. Tropicalkitty (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Confirmation
Is that you? In this case you can get sysop rights there too, if you want. Greetings, Luke081515 20:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Luke081515. Absolutely not. No. Not me. Feel free to exercise your own sysop rights against this imposter. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- (Global account log); 16:55 . . Luke081515 (talk | contribs | block) changed status for global account "User:Zzuuzz@global": set locked; unset (none) (Abusive user name: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=702896817)
- Global locked at beta-cluster. Feel free to contact me, if you want to create a account there, then I would rename this account, so that you can use the account. Greetings, Luke081515 15:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Same thing happened to me, I am betting we blocked the same sock puppet of a certain banned user recently. HighInBC 17:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Probably, but I have too many fans and not enough interest to begin to guess. Ping Ohnoitsjamie. [9] -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, same user that followed me to Commons today. Block away. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Probably, but I have too many fans and not enough interest to begin to guess. Ping Ohnoitsjamie. [9] -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Same thing happened to me, I am betting we blocked the same sock puppet of a certain banned user recently. HighInBC 17:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Wull
Wull, GOLLEE, fur the first time ever a troll compliments me, and you revert him? Shazaam! μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Username creativity
Hi zzuuzz, I noticed you blocked [11] today. Just one minute before that username was created, a very similar username was created as per [12]. Maybe they have smth to do with eachother (handy for block evasion), or maybe not, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers Horseless Headman (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC).
User page deleted
Hi zzuuzz, I noticed that you deleted my user page, and I wanted to know why you deleted it. Thanks. KBH96 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly. The deletion log entry for KBH96 shows the creator, their first edit shows the target, and your userpage consisted of one edit containing the whole of the target's userpage at the time with, as far as I can tell, minor alterations of no relevance. It could normally have been blanked, but since your userpage was gloriously red the most obvious solution was to redden it again. Why this all happened to you is something I can't recall. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh. Okay. Well, thanks for the explanation. KBH96 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, how'd you catch that? I actually still had notes on Supervisor635 (I obviously didn't remember), so I was able to confirm all the new accounts to Supervisor635 and retag accordingly. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- You have CheckUser, I have remote viewing. No, I just caught the thread before it disappeared off ANI. The article in question is of limited interest :) Thanks for filling in the forms. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Vodafone Events Centre
Sorry about my reverting of the page back to vandalism there. I thought I was only reverting blanking of text. I never checked to see what I was restoring. Boomer VialHolla 20:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- All good learning fodder. PROTIP: always check the page history :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Before I jump in and nuke the entire article, could you give some opinions about what content should and should not be on that article, please? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your accurate assessment. Though I'm not persuaded by much in the article's entire history, the version restored seems like a good place to proceed from, with possibly a return of the original title despite the protestations on the talk page. TBH I'm still trying to get my head around the logic. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Testing.
Hello Zzuuzz, sometimes I come across edits as follows: IP inserts some nonsense text into an article, and in a quick follow-up edit removes it again himself/herself (same minute or after, sometimes delayed). The opposite I also saw: IP removes smth from an article, then quickly restores it again, same text, same location in article. Are these edits that warrant a user warning for "test"ing? I never did this so far, but maybe I should for such behaviours? I do not have any concrete edits at hand, since there is usually no rollback needed for this (= not archived in my contribs). Thanks, Horseless Headman (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC).
- These are typically relatively good faith editors going "can I really do this?". Sometimes they are saying to a friend, or a class, "I can really do this". They are being careful enough to undo themselves. I tend to ignore them unless they're clearly making a habit of it. Some teachers make a habit of it and it's OK to tell them they're being annoying. It provides added content for their lessons. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, this IP is registered to Peel District School Board that is regularly blocked for extended periods for copious vandalism. I guess some sort of range block would be optimum but, meanwhile, I am inclined to reblock for 6 months to take us through to the school holidays in line with the block of User:216.126.81.202. Are you OK with this? Just Chilling (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I would find trouble substantiating it, but ultimately no complaints on either point. You're welcome to adjust the block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-) Just Chilling (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There have been reverts. Extend PC or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for putting in that block :)
» skraz /talk/email 16:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Revdel Febumatt
Should those be revdelled? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reverting. I am not so bothered to do that. It is however purely disruptive so it could be. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Fair enough, I guess it's okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Possible bad block by me
Please see this. I didn't realize the Dr. Luke thing was news. I figured they are the same person. Anyhow, Anonpediann's edit was such a serious BLP vio, I wasn't sure what else to do. Please unblock if that is best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hi Anna, I had a look at the user you blocked, and it may be that the user's account could have been compromised. The reason why i think this is because the user has been here since 2013 and has only been blocked once before for edit warring. As you already know, I am not an admin, but I like to help others, and i just thought i'd tell you that it would be best to see if the user submits an unblock request, see what they say and then consider unblocking. Zzuuzz will know a bit more than me on how to handle these situations, as he's an admin and I'm not, but just thought i'd tell you what I think of this. Have a nice day! Class455fan1 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sorted. I've unblocked him. I don't think he is related to the other(s). The edit in question was ill-considered and he realized it at once. I probably should have just warned him. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would have expected other admins to have posted at his talk at the very least. Anyhow, some good may have come of it after all. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
There is just one reverted edit last month. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI
The IP you just 24-hour'd. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, yawn, watching. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Brilliant :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
174.112
Hi, Just wanted to let you know that IP 174.112, that you blocked two months after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#Long term IP vandalism on 3 January 2016, has returned and resumed their disruptive edits (like [13] and [14]). Qed237 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Wit, helpfulness and grace under fire. What more could you ask for? Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
Notice
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
- theWOLFchild 00:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
MetaWiki File Block Addition
Hey Z, got another file for you to add. File:Vagina fingering.JPG was used on User:Yourname201's user and talk page. Has been removed. --TJH2018 talk 00:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
His father
You blocked His father (talk · contribs) for abusing multiple accounts. He's back as Why dont you like puppies (talk · contribs). Is there a known master or an SPI? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is some momentum to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Njoidjer/Archive, though it probably goes back a way before. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I warned about his username as refered to animal abuse as reported by the bots as Puppies and kittens being abused (talk · contribs).(KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC))
- This user normally creates six accounts at around the same time. Here Wikipedíans killed by a bomb explosion (talk · contribs · block log), Wíkípedians áre fjucking bjastards (talk · contribs · block log), Wiki bjastards (talk · contribs · block log) among others are the same person. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
And IP addresses too as an anonymous user?(KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC))
- I've never seen it, but then they're usually identified by abusive account names and the pages they create. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Re: Protection Decline
Oh, well, that's certainly useful and good to know for future reference. Thanks! Amaury (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Cause of death vandal
I'm not sure where to report this but I see that you blocked him last time on Maggie Kirkpatrick. 81.159.179.23 is the IP he's using this time, same edits as last IP[15][16]LM2000 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, blocked. I can never tell if it's incompetence, or... -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Thanks for blocking User talk:186.91.234.38! I have not seen anyone like him. Twinkle didn't have the right warning templates for his behavior. Thanks for cutting to the chase and blocking him! Peter Sam Fan 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
How do you block someone?
Like you did that one guy? Kailey 2001 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I happen to be a sysop. I press a button :) Non-admins can, amongst other things, report users to AIV. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh wow, thanks for pointing that out. Maybe some day I will run for an WP:RFA. Kailey 2001 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've been undoing vandalism at recent changes, am I doing it right? Kailey 2001 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see any immediate problems. You might want to take a look at some warning templates, and also WP:RCP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've been undoing vandalism at recent changes, am I doing it right? Kailey 2001 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh wow, thanks for pointing that out. Maybe some day I will run for an WP:RFA. Kailey 2001 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Bad Image
Hey again,
Got another one for you. File:UR_UF2.jpg
--TJH2018 talk 17:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Rangeblock
I placed a /23 block on the Rogers Cable range. Feel free to modify as appropriate.Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I noticed :) 24.114.64.0/18 is the other one. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
thank you very kindly for catching and correcting the disruptive edit to my talk page. I was far from home at the time!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
LTA for Supreme Genghis Khan?
I'm thinking if we should start a long term abuse case, as this person has used 78 accounts and counting to vandalize Wikipedia in one and a bit months. As this person keeps coming back with new IPs, at what point should we start the long term abuse case? TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 13:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I take the view that for LTA the abuse should extend over a number of years, and generally be non-obvious or non-identifiable vandalism, where the report can join the dots instead of the vandal. I suspect in any case that this is probably another, as yet unsepcified, LTA. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Our Sandbox got some help
|
Protector of the Wiki |
| Keeping the Richards at bay. Good job 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities
It would appear the protection applied is not enough against new account vandals?--Cahk (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Plao3030 block
One of their creations, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Downwiththesyndrome, needs mopped up as well. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- It would be negligent to delete it without checking if it has any weight. Do you know whose sock this is? -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- No idea, just happened to notice their vandalism through my watchlist. Before I blanked the page it had the appearance that 2 users had been blocked by the same user reporting them (Plao3030), the page seems to entirely be a hoax. I was quite confused by the page and originally patrolled it before I realized its illegitimacy. Anyway, thanks for cleaning that up.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
His sock is back again at Peter Nguyen Van Hung- JackLee0612 with his "Fully into the right content" business. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Number 56
He just added loads of stuff to his talk page, so much that it slowed my computer right down! Is this disruptive? Adam9007 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- For reference, Adam's talking about the blocked impostor Special:Contributions/Number 56 (linking to contribs in case he again decides that some near-900kb is a good size for his talkpage), whom you blocked and who is indeed misusing his talkpage access. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Extend PC protection? I see you have reverted edits, but I bet they are bad. --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)