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)

Have fun with the trolls! - Fredrik | talk 20:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you back, Rick. Have a happy new year. Antandrus 21:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yay! Welcome back - I'm quite relieved that it was a shortish break. Ambi 00:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

YES! Welcome back, Rick. I was hoping you would return today. Happy New Year! SWAdair | Talk 00:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your keychain, mop, and nuclear-powered mechanical ass-kicking machine are all where you left them. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's good to have you back, Rick. →Raul654 08:02, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back! Dori | Talk 23:02, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see you back, mate. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 23:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rick, also a warm welcome, though i confess that i didnt knew you had left and i'm glad you didnt. Lately i've been more on wiki.pt, so i probably missed some discussions here about what to keep and what to delete. I remember you as one of the people with patience and diligence to keep an eye on VfD, so here goes a question about something i bumped into by pressing random article. Are things like Thomas Patrick Norton I being kept nowadays? Sounds like vanity to me and google agrees with me. All the best, muriel@pt 18:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thank goodness you're back. Neutrality^talk 22:37, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome back! Thanks for uploading Image:Chnum.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 21:26, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, a photo of a 3-D statue is treated differently than a photo of a 2-D work. I know, that doesn't make much sense to me either. But the courts have ruled that a 1995 photo of a 1402 painting is just a copy of the original artwork, so the copyright expired in the 15th century. But a 1995 photo of a statue is a new work of art. So I guess it has to be "fair use". – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 21:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

About Thomas Patrick Norton I i just posted in VfD, together with Arthur Oscar Freudenberg. They are both grandparents of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), a family loving clueless new user. I'll drop a line on his talk page. Cheers, muriel@pt 14:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-what article are you refering too ?--Bnguyen 07:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)