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

Ok, if an entire class of pages is being attacked and you need to ask users of those pages to band together then where else would be a good forum? Asking users to read the VFD for the other pages in the talk page of the first instance is a good starting point I would say.

By the way advice is usually given by telling a person what to do. Telling what not to do is just telling me what not to do. So?--Malbear 06:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stop doing what? The only way wiki functions is via a community effort. the question above is how stakeholding members who are a subset of the said community can be notified without use of the talk page...--Malbear 06:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

Welcome back! silsor 01:41, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back! Good to see you. Have fun, don't get Wikistressed. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, man! It is so nice to see you back. I was sorta kinda quiet myself. Wasn't the same without you. Hope all's well. - Lucky 6.9 01:43, 12 Jan 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) --- -I was in the middle of editing it through preview about 5 times before I saved it, if you check -the time I posted it, and then posted the saved version it was about 5 minute delay of National Alliance of Vietnamese American Service Agencies--Bnguyen 08:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies, I noted that in my subsequent edit summary. I think the date of the newspaper is useful information, but I won't restore it because I don't like to stand up for info unless I can personally verify it. Everyking 23:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explain how stating the fact that the water was six feet deep is a POV.Lokifer 23:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'm not. It is a fact. I'm not questioning if he had the ability to save her or not. But the fact that the water was only six feet deep appears nowhere. The article sounds like the water was deeper than it actually was. It was shallow (or near shallow) water. Lokifer 00:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) That's all you had to say instead of calling it vandalism and a POV. I'll see if I can't dig something up that means your great and grand standards as being good enough as documented proof that the water was only six feet deep.Lokifer 00:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) You're welcome, but I don't see how landing upside down is considered more NPOV than the 6 feet of water. Either way, those are the facts and you can see how they can work for both sides of the argument of whether he could have or should have done more. As I said before, it was a fact and I wasn't trying to spin it one way or another.Lokifer I implied nothing. You read more into the edit than what I actually wrote.Lokifer 01:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, RickK....I'm not sure how suspicious to be about Resistance for Christ...it was the "John Conners" that made my ears prick up. If it can't be verified, it probably needs deletion, though. I sure can't find it on the net. - Nunh-huh 01:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You previously expressed interest in Netoholic's use of NetBot at Wikipedia talk:Bots#NetBot. The issue has been re-opened, and I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the page again. —Ben Brockert (42) 03:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at Special:Contributions/NetBot recently? —Ben Brockert (42) 04:56, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Unblock it. You've obviously blocked it only to troll me, for some trumped up procedural reason. I've been running it for a long, long time and it's never caused a problem. In fact, it has saved hours of work for your fellow editors. You are far too "close" to the issue and too interested in injuring my ability to work here to be the to have applied the block. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Making Clerks redirect to Clerk is standard redirecting of plural to singular, plus, many links to it (Special:Whatlinkshere/Clerks) had nothing to do with the movie. Some links need to be re-pointed, but no big deal. Why the sudden interest in my edits? Looking for dirt? -- Netoholic @ 08:54, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be happy to talk to you, but not if you are going to use an accusatory tone. If I wanted to move 500 articles around becuase its the best thing to do, I would, and I specifically wouldn't ask your permission. Go back to slapping newbies. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

I'm about to make some edits as NetBot (correcting those links above via manual disambiguation-solving). You might want to watch it, since I may destroy everything. -- Netoholic @ 09:07, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

I'll block it as soon as you start it. RickK 09:08, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a bot, I use NetBot to also perform repetitive manual edits which I don't want to clutter my contribs list with. -- Netoholic @ 09:16, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do about Cantus? There simply is not enough time to play his games, having to block him every ten minutes or so. I'm wondering about protecting every single country page while waiting to contact his ISP to shut him down for good. 172 11:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you want to start deleting the infobox pages? If I'm not mistaken, we can also protect deleted pages to keep Cantus from editing an article in that name space in the future. That maybe worth doing too. 172 22:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll follow your lead on this, as you have more experience dealing with these kinds of users than just about anyone. 172 23:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rickk - you blocked this guy yesterday and he's at it again: contribs. I've been reverting, but maybe he needs to be blocked again. — Asbestos | Talk 11:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

voting: Wikipedia:Country_infobox_vote

Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:33, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please explain your endorsement of rhobite's misuse of power? Ollieplatt 02:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Was serious I saw you deleted my question, but it was serious. I don't understand. Are you saying once a subject was deleted it cannot be brought up again ever ? user 161144

Ok I undertand that, so then a new page isn't wrong, just a page from somewhere else ? 161144