Good work for sorting it all out. You beat me to it. ;-) (I always try to reason with both sides first, which in this case, was rather hard to do...) ;-) Lra drama 18:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking AIexfusco5. I was going to report it to AN/I but after I reverted the edit to my talk page I had to leave because of a small personal issue. Alex fusco 5 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i don't know if my ip address changes but it was 81.154.189.63 when I was told that my edit was reverted due to vandalism. I am sorry if this message is in the incorrect place, but I would like to know which edit this is, in which article, at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.189.63 ( talk • contribs)
I just looked at User_talk:24.1.71.142 -- I keep an eye on the mesothelioma page, too. I'm pretty amazed at the level of detail, there. Do you track users with that much detail often? Or is it just when an IPvandal is particularly flagrant? -- Mdwyer ( talk) 03:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I note you have reverted the addition of Robert Rosthchild Farm on a number of ocassions, Care to explain why?. As the originator of the list concerned, I did check as to the firms existence using Google, with there being considerable independent hits for the firm concerned.. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've unprotected Torrisholme since it's been three months. We can lock it up again if they return. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Openad, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please don't do copy and paste moves. It messes up the page history. Thanks. I take it you want Wikipedia:Credentials moved over your copy at Wikipedia:Credentials (proposal)? -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for reverting the vandalism! Best regards, Xdenizen ( talk) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
One more entry. :) Rudget . 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Zzuuzz, Thank you for notifying me of the thread on ANI. Regards, nat.u toronto 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Web site submission, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{ prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot ( talk) 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Zzuuzz, I checked the last 5000 blocks via Special:Ipblocklist (mostly out of curiosity), and found that
which you blocked as Tor exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, Iamunknown 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you told to me come by if I had any questions, so I'm doing just that. :) I see you blocked 88.198.191.170 - would the time between each indicate an open proxy? I'm unsure of what is the current tell-tale sign that the IP is an OP. Best regards, Rudget . 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I blocked four IPs for three years as Tor exit nodes on January 2, 2008. Another user let me know [2] that they are no longer coming up as Tor exit nodes and suggested that I unblock, which I have done. Do Tor nodes change like this frequently, or do I not have all the information? Cheers, -- Flyguy649 talk 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Much obliged. :) Durova Charge! 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I come to you to ask for permission to use the Rollback feature. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster ( talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Zzuzz. I have some concerns about giving him this tool. 4 days ago, he made a mess by making a web of page moves. I don't imply that he's never to be trusted again, but I don't think he should have rollback at this present moment. I do respect your decision, so I'll leave you to do as you see fit. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 02:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please explain your excess only warning warnings on User_talk:64.80.63.131. A only warning is level 4, which means after one vandalism you should AIV report after the only warning. I would just like to remind you of that. Please answer the question on my talk page.
Thanks,
The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
(From my talk page) Honestly? No. Just wait for admin to block them. An only warning is just that - an only warning. It should not be used more than once. It even says on it that it will be the only warning they will receive. If you just want to bug them while they are still vandalising, try pointing them to the sandbox lots of times instead of being wrong about what you're doing. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Zzuuzz,
Please note that an IP editor that you recently blocked has carried on vandalizing his/her own talk page with offensive edits at User_talk:136.245.1.2. Perhaps a full block is in order? Cheers, Daniel C/ T + 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I'm getting open ports on 80, 81, 3128, 8000, 8080, and 8888 - but it might be inaccurate. That host is blocking all my TCP pings, so I had to fall back on OS detection, which is less reliable. east.718 at 19:31, January 18, 2008
I am very very sorry, but I am unable to find a link eith my vandalism warning, offered by you. I have checked many a article that i have produced and edited. But I can find nothing at all. Please may you recheck, or at least get back to me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingnobba ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Zzuuzz. Sorry to bother you again. After that mess I caused moving the Darth Sidious redirect page to move Palpatine to Darth Sidious (which I was planning to move the redirect page to Palpatine but did not realize that when you move a article the previous name redirects to the new name); what do you suppose I do to redeem myself? I am truly sorry. Earth bending master 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
well I reverted MER-C's edit by mistake caused by an edit conflict since I was reverting the Brewskater's edit..didn't mean too..-- Comet styles 12:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WTF DID YOU JUST SAY THAT I VANDALiZED WIKIPEDIA WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.19.196 ( talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 116.80.140.88, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL Query me! 09:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've blocked user:128.135.197.189 and protected WP:EL. Would you please consider unprotecting WP:EL or downgrading to partial protection? All the edit warring seems to have come from two anonymous IP editors who were trying to change a section. It's normally a stable and fairly uncontentious guideline page. Now that one of the IP addresses is blocked I don't think the page is going to be subject to any more edit warring. There's nothing I would want to edit, and no urgency - waiting a day would be fine too - I just think it sends out an unfortunate message when we have to protect the guideline and policy pages. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
OK? It will be one the main page in about 3-4 hours Victuallers ( talk) 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I either forgot the policy or wasn't aware of all the provisions. I was under the impression that talk pages were to be left alone, a feeling that was reinforced by other established editors in the past. Regardless, thanks for the heads up. CiTrusD ( talk) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This person has been warned repeatedly and others have restored the link he continually deletes. I'm not sure why you decided Ncjon is not a vandal. Bluehole ( talk) 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, I am not the only person who has restored the link to that site, which BTW, I do not administer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehole ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow -- you're an all-powerful wikipedia editor. I'm sure you're a toad without a life too. Bluehole ( talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting this out. I didn't even realize I'd been reported as a 'vandal.' Ncjon ( talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi it seems user, Buckcherry91 ( contribs) is one of the Krabs* sockpuppets that writes nonsense; See User_talk:Zzuuzz/Archive_9#User:68.44.84.185. His MO seems to be the same (editing Bratz pages, making "normal" vandalism reverts on some pages to make him seem legitimate). From the last SSP, Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/216.83.121.194_(5th), it seems the admin decided not to ban the IP. Whats the best way to go about this if his IP does not match any previous users but his MO is "similar" ?
Thanks, Strongsauce ( talk) 11:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but it seems that you deleted the article on the band "people named john." I like many others here UGA are avid fans of this band. The article was deleted twice and both times the editor claimed that the band was not significant. Of course its not significant when looking at the big picture, but then again a lot of other things that have articles on Wikipedia aren't either. I really feel like this band is important and it's unfair that you deleted the article without even trying to find more about the band. thank you. Bravefanz ( talk) 02:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Bravefanz
Hello Zzuuzz, sorry to bother you again. I was not sure where to go, so I decided to ask an administrator. Is the Main Page in its own name space, or some kind of sub-name space (if that even exists)? Because normal articles, user pages, etc. all display their title at the top, but the Main Page doesn't. And also, the tab at the top that says what name space something is in, such as this one being discussion, well, it is actually user talk, but you know what I am talking about, says main page. So I was wondering if it is in its own name space. Thanks for your help. Earth bending master 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading {display:none !important;}
. You would have to check that an element with this id exists on your own main page, then add this line to your sitewide monobook.css. You could test it first in your own
monobook.css. --
zzuuzz
(talk) 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
A couple of users have come to my talk page wanting to become verified WP:OP users. See User talk:Cobi#WP:OP_verified_users. Thanks. -- Cobi( t| c| b) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please re-delete-- my DB notice must have been simultaneous with your deletion. Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for input from recent Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies users regarding the above template. your input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies would be appreciated, if you have any preferences regarding the TOR link in the template. SkierRMH ( talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)
Circumcision may decrease a man's risk of getting HIV but it may also INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia. (and some doctors even say other STD's too but I won't get into that and I wouldn't put caps on INCREASE.)
The article on circumcision mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once. Click on the article. You tell me if it's an article on the procedure or a pro-circumcision propaganda pamphlet.
Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my one sentence I want to add? Or possibly get new Admins to take over this article, which has fallen way below Wikipedia standards. And if people's edits are automatically deleted, people won't want to get a user name and contribute in the future.
here's the New York Times piece... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y
I used to love Wikipedia until I went to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. 70.114.38.167 ( talk) 07:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Maximillion Pegasus ( talk) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Maximillion Pegasus (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for pointing that out. I realized that I had been doing that initially, so I tried to go back through my old blocks and block them correctly. I thought I had fixed them all, but I guess not. Apparently, I still do it occasionally, because I had just blocked this user and still did it wrong, and didn't catch it. Thanks, again. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I love you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.221.241 ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you'll see that I've recently done about 1,200 or so (actually I lost count over 800...) talk page deletions for old TOR proxies that were either mis-marked or the TOR proxy was closed (normally due to a change in ISP user). I've been treating them similar to the temporary user page deletion, as the users of these ISP's have probably changed (especially those that were TOR and left), and the 'new' user probably shouldn't be penalized. I did leave those that had very significant histories, those that were marked with other notes (such as schools - yes, some wiseacres had set up TOR nodes at their schools). If it does become a case of someone going on an off the TOR network, any admin has the ability to see the deletion history. Open proxies is a different story, if you check my work on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, you'll see that I've treated them 100% differently than these old TOR's. 07:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Zzuuzz ... please see
this talk page and tell me
what you think of my newly
created {{
Oldprodfull}}
... would you use it, or update
it if you encountered it?
Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO and other flag templates?
Happy Editing! — 141.156.217.11 ( talk · contribs) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello you recently denied to unblock an IP and then blocked it from asking why. It is certainly policy that you are supposed to soft block open proxy because Chinese editors can then access the site. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_users_using_Tor_to_bypass_the_Great_Firewall under the heading soft blocks! I have found a currently allowed proxy to ask you this btw Wen12 ( talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I thought my ears were burning! MastCell Talk 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw your edit in Kalakaumudi. I request you to have some admin acivity on that page. A user User:Blogmalayalam is placing unencyclopedic text as part of some dirty politics. I tried to removed it twice but the user is reverting it. Thanks in advance-- Shijualex ( talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Good. Edit war is happening in that article for the past one week. I do not want to violate the
WP:3R policy. That is the reason why I have stopped reverting it.
The article needs to be protected only from the user ( Blogmalayalam). This user is inserting unencyclopedic text (and image) as part of some dirty politics.
You can see that one article that is created by this user has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/M._S._Many. Even the text and image that are inserting by the above user in this article is also a part of the same politics. Moreover the deleted article is realted to this article.-- Shijualex ( talk) 19:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Even your edit is reverted
See this]. All the irrelevant text is back --
Shijualex (
talk) 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking this IP. I was not sure I should have done it. Bearian ( talk) 01:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you go through WP:OP and unblock all the tor nodes that aren't tor nodes anymore before they get archived? There's a lot of them. Thanks! Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 00:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, what can we do about the TOR nodes continually editing BQ and harassing me? — BQZip01 — talk 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should Deny him his fame and delete these cats
Thanks for that, please tell Sarah, whoever she is, not to lock my page next time... I can't respond there otherwise. I may just be an anon, but I want to help here, not be problematic. -- 82.42.237.84 ( talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
User Opinoso don´t respond to my messages about stop deleting a sourced and researched image I provided for the article Rio de Janeiro. He just stated on the history page that the picture is not aestethically good to the article, and "anyway, old flags are not important". He is in an edit war with me, he just erases the picture, showing a biased judgement. And, worst, he deleted my messages asking for him to stop deleting the image I provided. Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domaleixo ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
How should I cite the quote to make it stay on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demodonk08 ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to challenge this edit, the quote from a student is not opinion, i as a current student see it in action everyday, and on this bases you have no grounds to remove the comment, perhaps it was phrased a little carelessly but the overall view it describes is common knowledge within the student body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.133.98 ( talk) 23:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Zzuuzz! I noticed that you have made some edits (mostly vandalism control) on the article Garden Spot High School. I've been trying to figure out how to clean up that particular article for some time, and I've decided that I need the help of an administrator. It seems to me that the "Garden Spot Performing Arts" (or GSPA) section of the article is getting out of control. It has a great deal of information regarding past performances and even who the shows have starred. Should this section be moved to an article of its own? Does this information even belong in an encyclopedia? Is the Garden Spot High School article worth keeping without that section, which is the bulk of the article? I look forward to any guidance you can give me on my talk page. Thanks! - Gr0ff ( talk) 19:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Zzuuzz! I recently received a note saying that I had been blocked for disruption - addmittedly I was adding links to our directory site which has a range of new local portals but as there were numerous other links to similar sites I fail to see whay ours should be banned we're on the Thomson Directories Ip so there are quite a few of us who add local articals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.142.196 ( talk) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on my talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 13:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Newly-mopped, so a second opinion welcomed. Is a 2 week block for disruption appropriate for a user who continues their disruption immediately after the end of a 1 week block. Would longer be more appropriate? Indef, perhaps? GB T/ C 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar | |
For your contributions to an effort to combat sockpuppteer and vandal User:LBHS Cheerleader! |
GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)