NOTE: IF YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, AND POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE, YOU WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

Hiya I saw you recent post at the village pump, and thought I'd come an teach you how you could have done it.

Firstly do a reverse DNS check to see the internet provider. If it's AOL give up. AOL is far too large, has far too many computers for you to ba able to block the vandal.You'll sucseed in blocking loads of legit users and probably won't get the actual vandal.

Assuming it's not AOL then proceed as follows,

64.12.116.10 through 64.12.117.22

Set the last digits to 0 64.12.116.0 ->> 64.12.117.0

do two /24 blocks 64.12.116.0/24 and 64.12.117.0/24 that will block a total of 512 IPs

Stick to /24 only if you are at all unsure about what you are doing. Note that /31 will block fewer than /24 and /16 will block a lot more. Never go lower than /16 ( I don't you you can in actual fact anyway) Also since range blocks catch innocents as well as vandals keep them short. Policy is 24 hours only I think.

HTH theresa knott 22:28, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You always seem to be under a lot of stress, what with dealing with trolls and vandals and people who just don't get it. Relax and have a cookie. You'll feel better (food allergies excepted). -- Cyrius|✎ 06:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for bothering you with trivialities, but is the norm to make replies on the mailing list above or below the quoted text?

Signed up to mailing list - finally a really good use and test of my gmail a/c!!!

zoney ▓   ▒ talk 21:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You don't find implications of murder and forgery disturbing? I thought "disturbing" was a good way of indicating content without leaving us open to legal action. Can you think of an alternative? - Nunh-huh 23:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm.. tough to phrase. "Questions which imply they suspect pretense, forgery and other misdeeds"? - Nunh-huh 23:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oooh! How about "leading" questions? - Nunh-huh 23:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. I added in your "unanswered" since it seemed right as well. - Nunh-huh 23:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I take for granted you are not the an American that all day drinks cokes, eats big macs and watch cnn, so I suppose you respect points of view that express many people on this planet, even when your government calls them "wrong". I hope from now on you gonna respect the objectivity of Wikipedia and stop editing or even deleting this kind of articles.

--Themata 23:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i suppose taling to me on my msn themata@In.gr is too tough for you- not even trying to convince me--Themata 23:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I love it too. :-) I would add more of the deaths from I Spit On Your Grave but I don't know where they'd apply. But yeah, if you're going to hell for that, I will be meeting you again. Mike H 00:17, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Rick - We've been working on the case today. You can view the current principles and findings of fact at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco/Proposed decision. I'm going to ask you the same two questions that James and I asked Guanaco on IRC - (1) as far as we can find, neither you nor Guanaco attempted to case in a rational matter. Can you point us to a talk page to show otherwise? (2) Are there any *other* issues you want us (the arbcom) to address? →Raul654 00:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

I fixed the problem you mentioned about Downtown Disney (Florida). Thanks! --bdesham 02:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vanessa's sister was Meg Dale and was not seen on Love of Life from 1958 to 1974. It may be very possible that she went to The Secret Storm. Mike and Hope Bauer from The Guiding Light went to Another World for a little while. Mike H 07:20, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

It is considerably odd for him to vote keep or delete without researching the topic himself, especially when he states that "since there is no reason to delete..." Technically, by that standard, shouldn't it be, "Since there is no specific reason to vote." By the way, I hope you find my research comments (most of them anyway) on vfd to be useful. Also, it seems to me that your voting policies on VfD are well in sufficient logical reason to do whatever actions you've posted. For that, I salute you sir. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 07:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The first thing, I think, is an RfC. For what he did with my 3 nominations to VfD, I could have opened an RfC, esepcially since I tried to resolve it with him via his talk page and was told that he would continue to remove any nominations that he thought shouldn't have been made. Now, the question is who should do an RfC. I stink at conflict. By that I mean that I'm no good at it.

The second thing is his proposed policy to completely abolish VfD. He is rolling on with that, and Anthony may not be unrelated to the proposal.

Finally, Anthony, on his user page, glories in the fact that a page that was deleted by VfD has been recreated. It's an article on an infratrivial academic at NYU. The VfD vote was "vanity" (which was wrong), "non-notable" (which might not be), and, most importantly, "copyvio." The article when it was VfD'd had long passages from Vanity Fair in it. The article came back, without the copyvio stuff but still basically on a minor figure, and Anthony edited it on Aug. 4 to reinsert the copyvio Vanity Fair stuff.

Anyway, we have three or four people who have lost on VfD, don't agree with each other on anything else, and are now banded together under the banner of "Down with VfD!" As for Netoholic, the first thing to do is for all of us to give an official warning on his user page, with copies to our own. If he keeps going after ten or fifteen folks ask him to stop, his continued actions will warrant further action. Geogre 11:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Are you talking about Sidney Morgenbesser?
  1. It's my user talk page, not my user page. On that page I have a section dedicated to documentation of clearly famous people whose articles were listed on VfD as vanity. Of course, I haven't been keeping up on that section very much, because there are a whole lot of them.
  2. He's a professor from Columbia, not NYU.
  3. He was notable enough to have an article about him in Vanity Fair.
  4. The copyvio was handled on Possible Copyright Infringements (as it was called at the time), by a listing which was started by me, not on VfD.
  5. I did not reinsert any copyright violations. I added an anecdote about Morgenbesser which I phrased myself by reading the original article, putting it down, and then typing in my description of the anecdote in my own words. I'm not even sure if this particular anecdote was even in the Vanity Fair article. I could check if necessary.
• I'd also like to note that I'm no longer particularly fond with the idea of eliminating VfD, due to comments which have been made by Jimbo on the mailing list (to summarize, Jimbo used to support eliminating VfD, but he has since changed his mind).
• Finally, I'd like to make the same request to Geogre that I made to Bishonen (who he is apparently "banding together" with. If you have a complaint against me, take it to me first before you take it to others. At the least let me know about it.
• anthony (see warning) 19:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Setting my case

I wish to be clear, as I've been encouraging review of VfD, that I do not associate myself with actions such as Netoholic's (Though I do consider that the situation there could be better handled). As for anthony - again, I really consider that disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point also. (Ever-keep, never-delete) I am also not advocating direct overthrow of VfD! A look at alternatives for some cases would be useful. I'm also not a "rabid inclusionist" (though I do believe there are those a bit too delete-happy, with the upper-hand on VfD). There's some stuff on VfD I see as just speedy-delete (though again, I remain unconvinced that procedure couldn't be improved) nonsense. It seems the same old, same old, types of VfD submissions come up again and again. Surely it can all be streamlined better. Some level-headed debate would be nice. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 14:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I rarely vote delete because there are plenty of other people to do that for me. If you look you'll notice I usually don't vote keep for articles which are obviously going to be kept either. VfD really is broken if voting on it disrupts Wikipedia. But I think you're exaggerating. anthony (see warning) 19:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, you're one of the wisened elders, so I thought I'd ask you first: to illustrate something like currency, well, are we allowed to post pictures (taken by ourselves) to illustrate the article? I was thinking of Canadian_twenty_dollar_bill in particular, and I'm asking you b/c the talk page included a conversation that mentioned you for some strange reason. ... or is there some sort of rule against posting pictures of currency? Krupo 03:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

From one soap fan to another, I really have to thank you for your nod of support. It means a lot coming from you, because I feel that my work really is of a certain caliber to be praised by someone as well-versed as you are. Mike H 03:38, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Understood. --Merovingian✍Talk 10:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)