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)

Thanks for uploading Image:RobertATaft.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?.

See [1]

Thanks so much, Duk 09:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

so what's the copyright? see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, Duk 09:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the site you note specifically says ...Not all images are in the public domain

Also - Image:RobertLaFollette.jpg

I've killed most of the redlinks in the primary and secondary education section (and can probably do the rest tonight), some of the 'attractions' redlinks (most with free-use pics), and used a variety of methods to greatly reduce the number of long lists. About the only thing keeping me from switching to support is the city council member links. I was wondering if it's getting close to that for you. PS, the article now mentions the Electric Light Tower now, tho' I haven't gotten around to starting the actual article. Niteowlneils 19:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd just as soon see it disappear altogether, but if you think a sub-page would be a more widely accepted compromise, that'd resolve my objection. Niteowlneils 21:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've got the govmt section open to add sister cities, but can't think of a good name/fmt for the sub page. Did you have anything specific in mind (doesn't have to be perfect--we can always tweak/move/rename/whatever later. Niteowlneils 21:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Had a brainstorm just after I clicked Save: Current leaders of San Jose, California. Seems like current leaders aren't really necessary for the main article in an encyclopedia meant to cover centuries. Niteowlneils 21:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, there've been more switches to Support, and new votes, and now you're the only non-Support, and the article's seven days is about up. Niteowlneils 05:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I've killed a few more red links today, and have taken pics to go with some more tonight or tomorrow. Niteowlneils 01:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you were involved in this dispute deeply and certified the RfC. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Johnleemk | Talk 06:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that Ruth Warrick has died, I think we should probably make the final push and finish the history articles. I updated the 1970s as much as I could, and the 1990s and 2000s were great due to your work. Now the only incomplete article is History of All My Children (1980-1989). Are you up to the task of finishing this...or at least starting, and I can help? Mike H 22:44, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I am working mostly on historical articles here in Virginia. PearlWashington 00:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my view it is vandalism to interrupt a discussion on a merge by redirecting the page, it is pointless having the discussion if it is pre-empted. I would prefer you not interact with me further after your breach of the blocking policy. I notice I am not the only person troubled by your persistent breaches of Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Ollieplatt 00:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's going on here? Why did you undo my rollback? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I suppose even the mechanism that usually catches rollbacks of intervening edits must fail now and then. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't permaban him until we've figured out what to do with him. I know this might seem like being a little too nice, but being the, what, 100th odd most visited site on the web, we have to put up with thinks that are a little borderline. I personally would be happy with a ban, but there might be a good contributer in there. OK, really deep down there...But that's part of the wiki, in my mind: Deep Mining Operations! hfool/Roast me 00:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Your warning sounded pissed enough to do so if he tried to do it three times. Don't worry about it. hfool/Roast me 00:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you're reverting my edits? Ollieplatt 01:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick, You might want to check this Ollieplatt diff; a massive deletion. — Davenbelle 01:20, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

RickK, oh paragon of administrative excellence, you should note the changes made remove blatant commercial promotion for a privately owned web business that happens to be about politics.

It removed four paragraphs quoting directly from the website and generally scaled back a very long article about a very minor subject.

Davenbelle of course reverted my changes without explanation of any kind.

Ollieplatt 01:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you need worry about ollieplatt warning others any time soon, see this. And after the case is done it looks like he's going to get a year-long ban. --fvw* 20:57, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I wrote as of 2003 because the last information on him I found was dated 2003 (I have written to the Baltimore Orioles asking for more). Do you still think I should change it to 2005? Zerbey 01:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (trying to be accurate!)

How's this look? Thanks, Zerbey 01:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You've been on Wikipedia far longer than I have so I'll bow to experience here and remove the year. Many thanks for your help, and please feel free to offer any further comments! Zerbey 01:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey Rick - there's something I'd like to discuss with you off-wiki. Since you understandly don't have an email specified and don't use IRC, could you email me (mine is enabled) so I can contact you. →Raul654 07:20, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC) hey Rick This is albertindian2001 I haven't Edited anything in pen_pals Instead i created a new topic Penfriends when i searched first there is no articles for that so i created. and posted my blog. Actually I didn't had a article that time.

Please allow me to post the article abt penfriends and penfriendship only. not Penpals

What about others who have been reverting this article (including you, as I noticed ) to the POV version? You reverted the article without giving any reason on the talk page either OneGuy 21:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You gave the reason "Revert to NPOV" version when you reverted the article to a POV version. Why did you do that? Zain and I reverted to the same version, which is the earliest version. OneGuy 21:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy has violated the 3RR twice on the page in question in the last month and he has still not been blocked. He was warned about this behavior around January 10th by an admin (dab). He has for the second time, violated policy on Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by reverting the article 5 times within a 24 hour period:

• 20:57, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version) [2]
• 11:11, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (ops .. that was before 24 hours. Back to POV version .. till tomorrow 2:55) [3]
• 11:08, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version) [4]
• 07:25, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version) [5]
• 23:33, 22 Jan 2005 OneGuy (revert to NPOV version ..) [6]--Viriditas | Talk 22:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt just violated his injunction; see: [7] — Davenbelle 03:39, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

"They decided to begin an assault on Wikipedia" makes it sound as if DU members are a monolithic entity intent on destroying Wikipedia. The whole passage is just a big self-reference. If we add this here, then we'll have to add this to Slashdot, etc. See the talk page. Neutrality^talk 05:51, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Rick, I suggest contacting the guys that run the DU website and asking them take action against their users who are admitting to vandalizing Wikipedia. What these guys are doing is quite, quite immature [8] and doesn’t look well for DU also. GeneralPatton 07:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe he's been blocked several times this past week. Right now his failed arbitration requests are in the arbitration report; I suppose I may work in a mention about the blocks, but I don't think it will get a full article. --Michael Snow 07:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the injunction/ban, not just the fact that he shows up frequently in the block log. Yes, I'll definitely mention it, though as I said, I probably won't elaborate that much. --Michael Snow 07:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When can you expect my apology? If you see it proper, right now or on every morning hereafter. Originally,I didn't regard you as the originator of the process, but as an innocent blind continuator of someone else in a chain of the Wiki processes and features.--BIR 06:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you acept this one of my apologies?--BIR 06:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if hurt you.--BIR 06:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good night! silsor 09:37, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Opps, looks like there is no page or it is under another name, Lucerne is a type of grass, that is used as fodder.

I agree with your suggestions, I am just wondering if maybe there is another name for Lucerne that it might be under.--Jcw69 10:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One of the issues people have made is the lack of identification of the source or authenticity of articles here as a reason it should not necessarily be believed. So I decided to include the capsule reviews that my brother wrote for the movies he has in his collection. Since the reviews are not mine, and I wanted to identify where they came from, I decided to put his name on them. Then, if someone sees a movie later, they can decide whether they would agree with his opinion or not, and thus they could make an informed decision on the validity of his comments. It also attempts to solve the complaints about the veracity of items posted.

I'm considering creating a separate user-id to post his movie reviews here so they can be credited to (or blamed upon) him. I didn't feel this would be necessary unless I decided to post all of them, as there are more than 600. (He owns that many tapes and videos; on my suggestion I had him start typing up a list of his movies more than ten years ago. He posts a new review after every movie he enters into his list of what videos he owns.)

I hope this answers the comments you left on my user page. Paul Robinson -- Rfc1394 15:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick, You blocked User:168.209.97.34 for vandalism. But that IP address is an interception proxy used by a large ISP in South Africa, and there's no easy way for customers of that ISP to bypass the proxy (at least, not without tunnels). Is it possible to set the block in such a way that logged-in users from that IP address can still edit, even though anonymous users are blocked? My home Internet connection uses the IP address in question. —AlanBarrett/talk 17:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, this IP address began as adding minor vandalism, then progressing upwards. I believe that another sysop has posted warnings on this IP's talk page, yet this user seems no sign of stopping. When do you believe a ban should be put into effect on this address? I've been trying to keep that page pinned down to its non-Vandal copy, and hope that you can stop this vandal soon. Thanks so much!

CryptoStorm

You have blocked the proxy server IP of 168.209.97.34 because I was clearing up the old messages in the discussion. You claim that since there is an arbcom comment on that page that it can not be cleaned up. I beg to differ. I have spent well over an hour researching wiki policy and it doesn't seem that it is against the rules. If it isn't and should be, then maybe make it clear. (I know you say at the top that anyone who posts anonymously will have their message removed without consideration - that should make it clear it's up the user to decide what stays on his/her discussion page. 168.209.97.34 08:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So now the two of you are working together to delete the writings african american of a newbie [objective] to ensure what this clique has created as an 'encylopedia'. Why is it that this one page in this site has pissed a new user off so much! Maybe it's because of exactly the behaviour you are now exhibiting that I see written in this page! 69.107.115.110 08:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)