Cobaltbluetony (talk | contribs) →My RfA: new section |
No edit summary |
||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
{{User:Cobaltbluetony/RfA_thanks}} |
{{User:Cobaltbluetony/RfA_thanks}} |
||
{{indefblocked}} |
Revision as of 11:11, 1 April 2008
User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 12/header
sorry
it was for the purposes of a joke which went too far. i was going to change it back though, honest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.165.142 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
barnstar
THis is for reverting vandalism. Barnstargurl (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
vandalism
im sorry for vandalizing. -User:LBHS Cheerleader aka Barnstargurl (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank you for your prompt response to 204.14.12.84's vandalism!--Finalnight (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What personal opinion?
Could you clarify what you had in mind when you deleted my contribution? --Vladko (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- My mistake and apologies - I removed the wrong bit. I have since corrected myself. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Rollback request
Hi there. I'm interested in the ability to rollback. Please consider me as an option for having rollback ability. Thanks. Casull (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for granting rollback abilities. I'll wield the my newfound power with responsibility. </cheesiness> Casull (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Please block 71.3.65.46
71.3.65.46 appears to be a sockpuppet of User:LBHS Cheerleader and needs to be blocked. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of Rugrats characters
An editor has nominated List of Rugrats characters, 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/List of Rugrats characters 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) 14:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Asia
Hi Zzuuzz, there seems to be a user removing Georgia from the Asia page for unknown reasons, as well as the main map. Would you be able to keep an eye on it if possible? The user name is LEITBE. Lee Valdæs (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Penis vandalism
why did you undo my edits? that wasnt very nice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judge Damien French (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Tor Nodes
I see you blocked those Tor Exit Nodes already, but I did post them at WP:OP anyway. Momusufan (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Stupid
Another editor has added the {{prod}}
template to the article Stupid, 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) 14:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I see from the edit history of Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention that you blocked the above user name for being offensive. No block notice appears on the user's talk page, and I was just curious why no notice. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mainly because he knows why the username was blocked, both in an obvious sense, and through the templated block message. I could have left a block message on the talk page, but this would only be for the benefit of those who didn't check the block log, and would only otherwise generate a page which would have to be deleted in a month anyway. Sometimes I do, sometimes not... -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Scott A. Brown
Do you know who this Scott Brown guy the IP was talking about is?--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- A vandal spammed the same message to dozens of user talk pages using open proxies in the last few hours (see my blocking log). It's probably a long story, but this history may give some insight. You should ignore it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I know I might be a bit biased, but that IP address vandalized my talk page, and I propose that the block be either indefinite or made longer (1). –The Obento Musubi 17:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know when a different user will be using the IP address, or whether this user will be using another IP address? -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
why
did you delete my comment to user 81.168.90.24?? it was perfectly fine, expecially seeing as it is my son who i was sending that particular comment to. --Thomyeeha (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Spam link
Is it possible to blacklist this governwhore.com [full url removed]? It's being added to pages related to Ashley Alexandra Dupre. I reverted a users edits at NY Confidential that had the aforementioned link. Momusufan (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't look very encyclopaedic does it. As it has only happened once I'll keep an eye on it, with a view to blacklisting it if it continues. There is also a request currently in at WT:WPSPAM which I'll keep an eye on. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism by 172.xxx
Hi. It appears that an AOL (as you said) is using multiple IPs to vandalise Wikipedia pages in a similar manner. Should they be blocked/reported to AIV on sight because it's probably the same user? Should all pages vandalised by these IPs be semiprotected (wow all this happened less than 10 minutes ago)? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Block on sight, and semi-protect where possible. The IPs have a duration between about 30 seconds and 3 hours (as they choose). -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for taking care of the vandalism on my user page! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
121.90.87.26
It's an IP changing block evader. See Joe5545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Number8burp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
81.145.242.24
It's a soft block, so users can still create accounts from that one ip address, no range block was done afaict. I did a longer block because this was the second bock this month alone, and there is a long string of warning over the last two months. I'll leave it up to your discretion, feel free to shorten if you like. Dreadstar † 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, if it's reallocated every 24 hours, that one IP address certainly seems to have an affinity for being allocated to vandals; looks like about six different vandals in the past 30 days alone. Maybe it's a cursed IP address! Dreadstar † 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
For reverting vandalism to my user page. --John (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop Blocking the Bangor Grammar School Changes
Every Change I made was 100% true. The Banter Bus Club does exist and so does James Edwards. He has given Permission for his name to be used! The Rules say that anything that violates copyright or is not varifiable is subject to deletion as is anything that is deemed to be bullying or lible. Both of these changes are None of the above. I would appreciate you telling me your reasons for deletion, and why are Bangor Grammar School Pupils not allowed to edit articles relating to their school so long as they are non malicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lady Princess Duchess (talk • contribs)
- Please take a look at the other policies. For example, "just notable for being in existance" requires a verifiable independent reliable source. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't Be PC (talk · contribs)
Thanks. They've been at it for a while and they appear to be stemming from here, not to mention all these. Rudget. 15:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Sexual predator
An editor has nominated Sexual predator, 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/Sexual predator 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) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Chinese British
I believe the renaming of the article was the correct thing, but when I tried moving British Chinese to Chinese British, a message came up saying that it was already a page, and that is why I had to move it by myself. Apologise if this has created confusion, but Chinese British is definately the correct term - the UK's National Statistics which conducted the 2001 Census states the ethnic group as 'Chinese or Chinese British', British Chinese means Chinese people of British descent, which is completely missleading - see aslo Chinese American, Chinese Canadian, Chinese Australian etc. I would appreciate it if you reverted it back, thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The correct title is the one which is most common, as has been pointed out in the naming conventions. The is undoubtedly British Chinese, by a long way. The correct procedure for renaming it is to gain consensus through the requested moves procedure, though I have to say I think you are unlikely to get your way. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Cascade protection
Please see my response before someone uploads a giant penis picture into Commons. Could be any second... 65.213.184.1 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
removal of cosmetic dentistry link?
Hello, can you clarify why you removed my link please? The linked site is a definitive guide to cometic dentistry and supported by professional dental practitioners from around the world. It is supported by ads but that is only to help cover bandwidth bills. It is also of significantly higher quality from a content perspective than others sites you have left linked on that page? What is your rationale please? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.66.54 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't really see what distinguishes this site from the thousands of other made for adsense sites that get spammed to dentistry articles. Is the BDA involved? Is the site recommended by reliable news or academic sources as a trusty source of neutral information? Who says that this site is definitive, apart from its owners, the web design company, and those receiving revenue from its adverts? Sites that are being promoted by those who have an interest in promoting them are generally not linked to. See WP:EL for more information on the detail of Wikipedia's guidelines. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
re:autobiography
I wasn't trying to be uncivil, my understanding was that while NPOV biographies written by an uninvolved third party were acceptable if the subject is notable, autobiograhies on the other hand were not. In addition to being a COI, WP:BLP makes it clear that biographical information must be neutral, independent, and verifiable. I felt that this one in paticular read like a resume. Twinkle always leaves the same "form template" whenever something is tagged under CSD, normally these work fine, but the spam G11 template was not appropriate in this case, next time I'll uncheck the box and write my own comment on the person's talk page. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, that seems reasonable. You'll notice the comments about 'vanity' at the AfD. With real people it is always best to delete their article without offending them. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi Zzuuzz/Archive 12! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3).
|