Fuzheado
Past archives:
Toon Zone
Sorry about those edits accidently leaving the donations page, little new at this still (Dr. RKZ)
Leave the page semi-protected for a while longer. I'm hoping the vandal will lose interest in a week or soAce-o-aces 14:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
September 11, 2001 attacks
This video examines public videos of the several attacks on 9/11. It demonstrates substantially different facts from the article. This IS important and deserves your review before deletion. Consider the contents of this video:
Copyright tags
Hello. This map is going to be deleted because of lacking copyright information. Do you think there's any way to fix all these images that are uploaded by HKU students? Thanks. — Instantnood 16:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Semi-Protection
Hey Fuzheado, I saw you just reverted vandalism on the article George W. Bush, and, not to sound too much like a TV announcer, but "Are you sick and tired of constant reversions? Do you wish there were a better way?...Well, there is! And it's called semi-protection!" In all seriousness, any thoughts/edits you have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mysekurity 05:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of semi-protection, as it's clear the GWB page is 90% vandalism. I'd raise the threshold a bit more, like the old SPAT (Sock Puppet Avoidance Threshold) of old, of 25 or 50 edits. Fuzheado | Talk 05:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well the point is that we have more than one level; there could be a 10, 25, 50, or 500 threshold, all which could be incorperated pretty easily. -Mysekurity 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
What basis was homosexuality semi-protected on? It gets vandalised, but no more than usual, and I don't really see a justification for the ugly header. Ambi 10:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- While I understand where you're coming from, that's really not what semi-protection is for. Semi-protection is meant for short-term vandalism sprees - not permanent use on an article. There was no particular vandalism spree at homosexuality - at the very least, nothing to justify the ugly header. If that is going to be plastered all over the top of our most heavily viewed articles, it's really not going to do wonders for our credibility. Ambi 11:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Images keep being deleted
Hello could you please remind your students to tag the images they uploaded with the appropriate copyright information? Four images have been deleted for the article on The Standard alone [1]. Thanks. — Instantnood 17:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
When you semi-protect a page, please remember to list it at WP:PP. It's especially important at the moment as the policy and technology are new. Also remember that semi is not a solution to apply to an article that is simple high-profile; it needs to have a serious vandalism problem. Also remember that protected pages are still considered harmful and that semi should be a temporary measure just as full-protection is. Admins must work hard to not allow Wikipedia to creep towards a uniformly semi-protected state. -Splashtalk 12:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have semi'd quite a number of pages, without giving any reasons or noting the fact on talk pages. Semi-protection is not a "thank god, now anons can't edit anymore' option. Please don't overuse it. Ambi has unprotected Homosexuality and I've unprotected Evolution. Neither show then-current vandalism problems and so any level of protection at all is unnecessary. Evolution does show an IP address hitting the article yesterday, but then a block should be used. Protection is a last resort: and semi should be used no more often than full-protection as a rule. If you can block, block, if you can't and they won't go away, semi-protect for a little while. -Splashtalk 12:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
How long should an article be semi-protected?
I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 15:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Careful with others' comments
Please don't add things before people's sigs. It makes it look like they made the comment. Please add your stats underneath the entry, with your own sig next to them. Thanks.
But I wonder why they are relevant. SP's purpose is to temporarily stand in the way of drive-by vandalism. It is not to walk around prohibitnig anonymous editing widely, and is not dependent on some history of vandalism. If an article needs protecting, it's because of a current vandalism problem, not an historic one. -Splashtalk 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Santa Claus
I clicked on recent changes and saw you reverted edits by 69.166.128.57...but his edits were not vandalism. All that he did was add links...please explain why you reverted.KI 22:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Semi-protection of my user page
I already listed it under Wikipedia:Protected_page#User_pages. I think it makes much more sense to sort pages based on their type (e.g. Article, Talk page, User page), rather than based on which kind of protection was applied to them. However, I specifically marked the entry for it on WP:PP, as well as that of many others I reduced from full- to semi-protection, as "semi-protected". The Wikipedia:Protected_page#Semi-protection section is specifically for real articles being semi-protected, not for Talk, User or other types of pages. Owen× ☎ 23:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Block
Well, the person I blocked had been adding unsubstantiated rumours to an article on a candidate in the Canadian federal election. While I didn't warn the individual my previous edit to the article made it clear this wasn't acceptable (particularly since that article was the subject of a news report in the Ottawa Citizen accusing Wikipedia of allowing gossip in its biographical articles of election candiates (see Free online encyclopedia fuels gossip on candidates Speculation, innuendo rampant on Wikipedia)
The reason I blocked the IP for a month was a) it was a dedicated IP that had done this over a period of time and b) the election will be done in a month. Homey 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I also see that after you unblocked the person they went on to do the same thing one more time to the Cheryl Gallant article. Homey 03:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Tofu photo
Can you confirm that the change that was just made to the "tofu flower" photo you uploaded to the Tofu page is correct? Please take a look. Badagnani 16:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Liberal bias
Why is it "vandalism" to edit liberal non-sense ? Since when is George W. Bush is considered a member of the Christian right?
Why is this liberal lunacy allowed to continue in all impunity?
On Christian Right's persons list
What about the claim that Ann Coulter is part of the Christian Right? Her books "Slander", "Treason", and "How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must" are biased but have no religious content whatsoever. So again, how can Ann Coulter be in the Christian Right list?
Hank Williams dips into the surreal
Thanks for your previous comment on my semi-protection of Hank Williams. The issue with the vandal has now taken a surreal turn--the guy posted on the article's talk page that he witnessed these events and that I'm part of the conspiracy to cover up the facts he keeps inserting into the article (he also made a comment that I'm a "very stupid hillbilly indeed" but I can't help but laugh at that). Anyway, could you please advise me what to do. This is no longer a clear-cut vandalism case but instead a case of no original research. Since the user can't be blocked b/c he keeps using sock puppets, how do you suggest dealing with this? I have no desire to keep reverting the page, which is what previous experience with this user suggests will happen when the page is unprotected. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
AOL/Coolie vandal
Is there no way to stop this AOL coolie vandal? I suppose you can't block all AOL IPs, there needs to be a better way or some tool to use. -- MicahMN | μ 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Louis Epstein's user page
What was the reason for this revert? Owen× ☎ 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
McDull and Dae Jang Geum
Hello! I would like to take a closer look at the cultural impact of these two shows in Hong Kong, but it seems that there is not much written regarding this except in newspapers and such. Do you know of a more centralized resource for this? Thanks! --HappyCamper 12:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!
I've updated your post count link (which had expired) as a little thank you for helping in reverting the vandalism on Robert Koch. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 
15:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks for the speedy cleanup! xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hong Kong meetup
Hi Fuzheado. HK Wikipedians are organising a gathering some time around Chinese New Year. The meetup'll held on January 21, 2006 in City University of Hong Kong canteen. Please visit the Chinese site: zh:Wikipedia talk:聚会/2006香港春聚報告 for details. :)--Simon Shek 14:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You should be ashamed
I thought better of you. You should be fighting against the very idea of the Counter Vandalism Unit, not participating in it. I can't think of anything better designed to encourage juvenile antagonism than paramilitary affectations about "protecting" Wikipedia. --The Cunctator 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores Talk 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Re:Meeting
Hi, Fuzheado. Umm...I don't know a lot about the meeting going on now, since I havn't joined last online meeting. We should find some university or company to support the meeting, therefore we think HK maybe a best place to held this meeting. They are still discussing about where to held the meeting and how to find university or company to support the meeting. :)--Simon Shek 15:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm Chungpui from Chinese Wiki. Now they plan to hold the Chinese Wikipedia Meeting on 26 and 27 August 2006. The ___location is still under election. Although Hong Kong gets alot of support, we don't have a solid plan on finance and veune, and seems that we lack core members who are mature (age18+) and willing to dedicate tehir time. At the same time Taipei have some core members and a possible support from Academia Sinica. So seems that now only Taipei has a realistic plan. I notice that you are from HKU. Do you think it's possible to get support from HKU (finance and veune) if HK hosts the meeting? If we can solve these 2 problems I think it will be very realistic to launch a HK meeting. The only thing is that 26-27 August will be in the orientation period of HKU and most facilities will be occupied by student societies.Chungpui 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's a firm date, as it was voted from the last meeting. But if we have a sound reason (say the veune only available in that that and that day blar blar blar) maybe we can alter the date a little bit. May I visit your office to have a brief talk on the meeting? I mean, if you don't mind. I'm not the "core" of the HK bidding committee as I'll leave HK very soon, but seems that they (or we) really need some advice in this stage.Chungpui 12:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- BTW I'm also a HKUian in fact I'm a firend of Alice. ;)Chungpui 12:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User page
Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
got it
I'm on the discussion page.
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Meeting
Hi Andrew, just on the m:Special projects committee, you might want to know that we're having our first IRC meeting on Sunday. Anthere said she hadn't heard from you, and I have a few email addresses for you, so thought this was the best way of getting through. Ant should be able to help you if you can't get through to the spcommittee-l list - maybe give her or myself (cormaggio at gmail dot com), an email before then. Talk to you soon.. Cormaggio @ 23:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Best of luck with that move. Talk to you Sunday... Cormaggio @ 11:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Quote
I recently found what I thought was a great quote by you that was part of the Wikipedia Discussion at PoynterOnline [2]. I hope you don't mind that I've put it on my user page. If you would prefer that I do not use the quote, or would prefer that I use the larger quote to show the context, that would be okay with me as well. BlankVerse 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)