Beware! This user is a known talk page stalker.

User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 21/header

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

• 78.176.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 78.179.176.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 85.108.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 88.242.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 88.246.224.0/19 (talk · contribs · block log)

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]

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]

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 6 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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;-)--ClubOranje^T 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 me}^{concerning 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 me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 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]

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]

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

• Stupid extra |. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]