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

===================

Hi Rick,

You would appear to have blocked my user. I most certainly have not committed any acts of vandalism, so I assume that some kind of mistake has occurred. My IP address is 62.252.192.4 - and I have edited some articles without signing in. Received notification of messages to this IP a few days ago, and this contained numerous requests to stop vandalism. This may sound a bit na⌂ïve, but can more than one person use an IP? Could I be sharing mine with someone - unwittingly? In any case, I would be grateful if you could resolve this for me.

Thanks,

David Faulenzer 00:07, 27 Nov 2004)

===================

This is sort of a work in project but I'll try to follow your advice. Thanks, Max

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)

How on earth is it that you have remained a sysop for so long, Rick? You deleted a cited, well-written, neutral paragraph? I wouldn't normally use rollback for a disagreement like this, but I can't see how what you did isn't plain vandalism. Everyking 06:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Can I ask you about this? I, as a Briton, have never heard the term 'vegetable marrow'. In my experience, it's always just a 'marrow' in common speech. If it's put under 'V' then it will be missed. -- Necrothesp 10:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rebroad has raised this issue on the mailing list, and I must admit, your reverts do seem slightly suspicious. Can you explain them? Here's a link to his original post on your user talk page linking to the diffs. Johnleemk | Talk 13:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you should weigh in at the VfU discussion, Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Lil_Jon. I understand what you did. I don't think others have been fairly representing what you did. But as I read the debate, it appears to me that User:Capitalistroadster has presented some kind of evidence for Lil Jon's alleged notability. He also says he has a valid version of his own here: User_talk:Capitalistroadster#Text of Lil Jon article.

You said you'll keep deleting the article until someone "has said something to indicate that the content is valid". On the face of it, User:Capitalistroadster has done so. I think you should indicate you're aware of what they've said and, if so, whether or not you accept it.

As for me, Lil Jon is utterly outside my sphere of competence so I have no useful opinion on the content at all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I have no problem with keeping the current version, so long as it no longer says that Lil Jon is a little Swedish boy who, with his recording partner Ol' Dirty Bastard, rescued somebody who had been hit by an asteroid in Prince Edward Island."

Funniest thing I've read in days, with the exception of the actual text you were making fun of. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I said in an unclear manner, I've read the original vandalized version. Some of the better nonsense I've seen lately. Most of the stuff we get lacks imagination. Still deserved to go away though. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Rick,

The problem now seems to have resolved itself. The IP address is definitely correct, however. Weird.

David Faulenzer 00:21, 27 Nov 2004)

I live in Chicago and had no idea either...but apparently it is a real designation. See http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html very boring, but marketing scientific type data.... Sortior 08:28, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you realised, but at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, you cut User:Vague Rant's comment in half and declared that the first half of his comment was by an anon and was therefore not counted. [1] Ambi 11:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've made a compromise proposal at Talk:La La, which I hope will put to rest this whole mess that you started. I still don't really know what your original objection was, and God knows you could've spared me many precious hours of my life in argument if you had just told me what it was, but I hope that this will settle it. Everyking 14:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to tell you that someone registered User:Ríck K (note the accented 'í' and the space), declared their intention to go on a vandalism rampage (giving your details), and then did so, using page move vandalism. This was caught, blocked, and the vandalism fixed. -- Karada 16:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We enjoyed it, though, in a Saturday afternoon When Admins Go Mad...' fashion... --Tagishsimon (talk)