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)

Cookies!

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)

• Please take a look at Wikipedia:Invalid article names and Talk:Norse saga#Characters "Ǫ" == >& # 4 9 0 ;< and "ǫ" == >& # 4 9 1 ;<. Would be happy for any constructive suggestions also about how to explain technical issues to people skilled in other areas and writing good articles. Thanks!

---

• BTW: NOTE: IF YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, ... Please be aware that not all contributors to Wikipedia projects have an user account at en.wikipedia. Some "anonymous" visitors may sign (here) with a signature from their home Wikipedia as I did at many Wikipedia in the past. Regards [[User:Gangleri|Gangleri | T | Th]] 20:41, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I undeleted it and this is a relisting based on Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. The previous vote is clearly linked in my introduction to the listing. --Michael Snow 01:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See the final decision for detail. --mav 04:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you see where the user who posted this innitially is from? I think it might be someone trying to promote the effect, effectively making it an ad. The Balducci levitation is notable amongst magicians, but thought I know about King Rising, I don't know how it's performed, and it's not really been about all that long. Still, it might be notable amongst its performers, so don't delete it just yet. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:00, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

RickK, take a look at the "What links here" for this page. It is pretty clear that it is not intended as a rival page, but a refuge from the edit war. The title is certainly not the best (I would have chosen just "temp") and it might belong in a User sandbox, but deletion seems a pretty harsh solution. Just my two cents. Mpolo 14:14, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

"Newspaper reporters and technical writers are trained to reveal almost nothing about themselves in their writing. This makes them freaks in the world of writers, since almost all of the other ink-stained wretches in that world reveal a lot about themselves to the reader." Kurt Vonnegut Jr., novelist and former technical publicist for General Electric (as quoted in Gary Blake and Robert W. Bly, The Elements of Technical Writing (1993)).

That may be the goal to which we Wikipedia contributors should aspire. Like most goals, it is probably unattainable.

Italo Svevo [who lacks the Wikiexpertise to sign his name properly]

No problem. I'm afraid the approach taken in quite a few of the undeletion requests has gotten to be as much about personality conflicts as about whether undeletion actually makes sense. Hopefully the current rewrite manages the balancing act between NPOV style and clearly stating the relevant facts. --Michael Snow 20:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi rick, its me, mboverload (again)

Anyway, I have a question for you. I am trying to add some store locations and phone numbers to this article but they always end up on one line instead of two. It's near the end, do you have any suggestions?

--Mboverload 06:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WOw rick, are you on ALL the time? Thanks for the help! --Mboverload 06:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK will change my handle. PS Fuck You JumboDick 07:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be it's own article. Spinboy 07:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I'm too tired to argue right now. Merge it if you want. Spinboy 07:42, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should note that there are quite a few other articles, especially from the UK of students societies that have their own articles. See Category:United Kingdom Students' Unions Spinboy 20:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi RickK, I was going through the list of edits by IP 205.232.75.70, which I was able to show unequivocably originated from User:Pnikolov, when I saw the annonymous abuse he inserted on your talk page. I took the liberty of adding this on the Request for Comment page myself, only because of my evidence that it came from Pnikolov. If I should not have added material from your talk page to that page myself, I apologize and will of course remove it. Thank you, -- Asbestos 15:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see you reverted the removal of vandalism by an anon. Could it get any more surreal? :-) JRM 20:59, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

I award you this nice barnstar. Enjoy! --Lst27 (talk) 00:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What "massive vandalism" are you talking about? The edits to the city articles are perfectly valid. I know it's contentious, that's why there are edit wars. I'm well within the three-revert rule, in fact I've been reverting those articles just once a day. And if that's wrong, it's just as wrong for the other side which reverts those articles just as often to the other version. You can protect all those articles, but if not, I have as much right as anyone else to edit them. I have defended my position on various talk pages. Gzornenplatz 01:51, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense, Gz! There are no "sides" here. It's just you vs the rest of the world. Nobody else shares your view on the "former German names" issue. Nobody else supports you. And you don't defend anything! You admit yourself that at least one third of German pages still calls these cities by those allegedly "former" names! Halibutt showed you links to the freshly printed German Guide Books to Danzig, Allenstein and Frauenburg, yet you still stubbornly spend at least an hour a day to show everybody that you're the only one who sees the "truth", by vandalizing the pages on Polish cities. Space Cadet 03:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• i think it was good to ban GZ for 24h even I have to say I'm involved so I'm not very neutral. --> if you want to make your own picture of the situation you might read e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/German names, [[Talk:Gdansk] and Talk:Pila. On the German wikipedia GZ war blocked several times because of his editwars (on en as far as i know only once or twice by Jimbo) .. as the alternative would be protecting all pages connected with polish cities. At the moment he is banned for some weeks on de ...Sicherlich 12:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rick, it's been a long time since we've gotten in touch. I need you to take a look at Vanesa Littlecrow for me. Someone thinks that I'm POV and I think it's because of the phrase "multitalented". When I wrote that phrase, I was referring to the fact that she has more then one talent. There is a talk page on the subject, could you look it over? I value your opinion very much. User:Marine 69-71

...is not vandalism and is not a reason to block. And if it were, you'd have to block the other side too. So please don't do that again. Gzornenplatz 05:22, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Repeating the nonsensical claim that I was on a "vandalism" spree doesn't make it any truer. A contentious edit is not vandalism. Gzornenplatz 05:27, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

What's up RFC buddy? silsor 20:57, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Now you should be able to find the needed details about vandal "69.139.27.157". Please refer to the "vandalism in progress" page, entry made on Nov. 14. Thank you for your attention. BadSanta

User:Yitzhak seems to be very apologetic about User:Yitzhak/Maclab Schedule. Although User:Yitzhak/Maclab Schedule was clearly an inappropriate use of Wikipedia according to Wikipedia:User_page, I don't see it as disruptive or vandalism or anything like that.

My perception is that you didn't think it was a big deal. It was just a page that needed to be deleted and you wanted to get it done.

Looking at his contributions, User:Yitzhak looks like a well-meaning, low-volume, occasional contributor.

If my perception is right, and if you haven't done so already, you might consider sending him a brief note via the Wikipedia email feature (since he seems to be more of an email person than a User_Talk person), just saying that it's not a big deal and he shouldn't worry about it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Hi RickK, since you are an admin, your help is needed here.

The user id User:RalphWWW, User:Geosammie, User:Serge56 User:JuliaJ, User:Thegist, User:Bharata natyam were all created since 13th november 2004. It seems they are all created by the same person who has done considerable vandalism from 219.65.124.*** on the bharatanatyam page and by creating the spam Medha Hari on a young performer. It seems this person makes different user id and creates support for himself in vote for deletion, request for page protection of bharatanatyam page with spam etc. The person seems to create innumerable user id. This vandalism needs to be stopped.

The so called Bharatanatyam external links and Bharatanatyam resources are advertisement and partisan promotion of a dancer named Medha Hari. Such spam cannot be used as a link in the wikipedia. The wikipedia is not a platform for advertisement and promotions. The purpose of these partisan links is to promote the sales of cds and a young performer who is not even a major dancer.

the inward links to page Medha hari has probably been created by the same author, it is very easy to create several links to a spam on the wikipedia. One should not be deceived by them.

listing on open directory or Looksmart page or Google and professional directories like Narthaki.com, can be done, it is never taken as a criterion to validate authenticity or to be listed on an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is well aware of such acts by people to legitimise their personal views. Water Fish 21:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why did you delete these?

1. 05:41, 14 Nov 2004 RickK deleted Melanie Shanahan (content was: ' Melanie Shanahan (January 1964 - December 11 2003) was an Australian world folk singer and songwriter. She was a member of t...')
2. 05:41, 14 Nov 2004 RickK deleted Audrey Harden (content was: ' Audrey Harden (1993-December 16, 2003) was the niece of Oscar-winning actress Marcia Gay Harden and daughter of Rebecca Harden a...')
3. 05:40, 14 Nov 2004 RickK deleted Lucy Grealy (content was: ' Lucy Grealy (1963 - December 18, 2002) was a poet and author who wrote the 1994 memoir Autobiography of a Face which dealt with ...')
4. 05:40, 14 Nov 2004 RickK deleted Gloria Emerson (content was: ' Gloria Emerson (1929 - August 4 2004) was a journalist and author who mostly and frequently wrote about the war effects in [...')
5. 05:40, 14 Nov 2004 RickK deleted Theresa Miller (content was: ' Theresa Miller (1958?-December 4, 2002) was a chemistry teacher at Columbine High School who is noted for her heroism during the Col...')

-- Chuq 01:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I personally restored the Melanie Shanahan article. There was no mention of a copyvio in the article prior to deletion or the deletion message. Googling for Melanie Shanahan, with parts of sentences contained in the article (both the original article and the article as it existed immediately prior to deletion) find nothing. I couldn't find her on http://lifeinlegacy.com either. In future could you please indicate that the article was a copyvio, and include the source URL. -- Chuq 23:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since it's come up a number of times I feel I should make it clear to you that I am not and never have been a sock puppet. It's annoying too constantly be referred to as one. And as no one else has mentioned thinking that I am a sock puppet I thought I might bring it up with you. It would be wonderful not be called one in the future, thanks. —Florescentbulb 04:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the last couple of days I was blocked from editing pages, your reason being that I was a "Britney Spears vandal." But I have never edited the Britney Spears article. I'm guessing this was a case of a mistyped IP address or something. I don't blame you or anything. What can I do in the future if this happens again? Fishal 20:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) (192.231.160.252 20:20, 16 Nov 2004)

I just was blocked again, making twice in one week. Again, it is certainly not your fault if someone is somehow using my IP address (especially odd since it's a laptop computer). But on the off chance that I am blocked again, or heaven forbid blocked indefinately, what are my avenues of protest while I am blocked? Fishal 22:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. :-) —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have now raised this to the level of a request for mediation. Feel free to sign on as another party to the dispute, or not. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hey Rick, about your note on User talk:Mike Garcia - he did apologize to Hephaestos, and Hephaestos even responded. It's on Hephaestos' talk page. Adam Bishop 04:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, I suppose it's better than nothing under the circumstances. Adam Bishop 06:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do not try to obstruct discussion on security testing. This is an important issues and we need to put together an article on it. Thank you. 128.196.194.167 07:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

It wasn't an attack on you, it was an attack on your lack of research. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Your additions were superfluous. It is obvious by reading the lead that these are "fictional" characters. "[P]layed by..." makes it clear. Therefore, the additions were redundant. Subsequently, I removed them. Curtsurly 06:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rick, you say that the anon posted copyrighted material. I think it's good that you're being diligent - keep up the good work! - but before reverting will you please provide the webpage where he has copied from? Unfortuneately, its up to the accuser to provide proof of violations. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. That's all I wanted :) - Ta bu shi da yu 09:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I came here to say that I rather liked the baby picture at John Howard, but when I arrived I was shocked to see an enormous picture of Hitler on your User page, without any apparent reason. This is in very poor taste and most offensive. Unless there is some good reason for it being there, please remove it. Adam 10:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You most certainly do. Adam 10:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Adam 10:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please share it with us. Posiduck 05:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you help me keep an eye on him? He went through about 50 of the soap actor profiles and added long character names to them. In many cases, they're not even helpful, because so and so may not have been married to OtherCharacter while that man or woman played her. Now if it's an actress like Susan Lucci or Eileen Fulton, you know, someone who was KNOWN for her character marrying half the town, I'd understand the relevance. But just any old actor? No. Mike H 22:05, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that about a week ago on the relevant RfC page. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with my question at the Village Pump. — Knowledge Seeker 00:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My apologize, I really didn't think it was appropriate for an encylopedia (I wouldn't except it in a "for sale" encylopedia). I see you editing alot; so I'll take it as authority that it is appropriate. I'll refrain from doing something like that again. Adn thank you for bearing with me being a n00b. Ash Lux 06:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey Rick, I think you might want to take another look at Morphosis, regarding notability. Thom Mayne (the founder) seems to be a well respected architect, and Morphosis has been around for over 30 years, and completed 35 major projects, far from needing self-promotion on Wikipedia. I have a feeling it was just written by someone who was interested, but didn't know enough to write a long article. Check out my comment at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Morphosis. —siroχo 08:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

What do you think I should do about this Should i revert or leave the page as it is? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 00:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. anthony 警告 00:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, now I found it. If you don't stop trolling RfC, rest assured that I will start an RfC against you. But more likely I will take your personal attacks on me to the arb committee first.

None of this is set in stone though. Just stop attacking me and I'll forget about your past behavior. anthony 警告 00:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm still gathering evidence. And I'm still giving you time to reform your ways. anthony 警告 00:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See my comments on User_talk:LGagnon#Dr_Zen. I don't like personal attacks, but Dr. Zen seems to thrive on them. Could you point me in the direction of some articles regarding your opinion of him as a troll? I'm just trying to learn more about this user, as I haven't been exposed to his edits before now. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 02:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been attacked by him as well, on Talk:Ma'alot massacre as an example. He seems to feel free to wade in calling others "POV-warriors" and "biased", all the while claiming his own NPOV and lack of bias. Then when you point out that these are personal attacks, he describes you as "un-civil". Feel free to e-mail me as well. Jayjg 04:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to take the plunge and self-nominate for adminship to make the work I do a lot easier. Please head over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#MacGyverMagic and let your voice be heard. There's no hard feelings if you oppose, just make sure you let me know how I can improve. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:34, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

As Pename has been attacking both Alberuni, myself, OneGuy and yourself, I was wondering if you would like to certify Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pename? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's cool. I just thought it was unfair of him to call you a "moron". - Ta bu shi da yu 05:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 50. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 21:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

If you truely have no problem with multi-licensing then copy and paste "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" and save it in your user page. -- Ram-Man 14:06, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Do you suppose it will, Rick? I find myself unconcerned. You listed an article on cleanup which doesn't need cleanup, so I appropriately removed it, just as I would have if you had listed a featured article there. Moreover, you haven't done what I asked you to do, which was to raise your specific problems with the article on the talk page. Who is going to clean up the article besides me? Everyking 14:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was not addressing you alone at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cantometrics but rather all participants at that page, specifically User:Gareth Owen. Hyacinth 17:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rickk. I notice you reverted the Jesus article at 9:38PM today but gave no reason[1]. The edit looked ok to someone like me who knows very little about Jesus. Was there a reason why you couldn't give a reason? (I'm trying to learn more about how Wikipedia works). Thanks in advance for your explanation. --Rebroad 23:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And also this one - no reason given. --Rebroad 23:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your quick reply (on my talk page). From personal experience, I would say it would certainly be useful if a brief summary of the reason could be included in the change comment for the page being edited. I appreciate there were spelling mistakes that were obvious to you, but I'm guessing they weren't obvious to the person who put some effort into adding the additional information. And if you felt it was biased, couldn't you have let them know this also? --Rebroad 00:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rickk. What's the best way for a discussion. Is it best if we leave our replies on each other's talk pages, or is there any other way of doing it, such that all the text is together? Cheers, --Rebroad 00:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)