User talk:165.228.131.12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 165.228.131.12, is registered to Telstra Australia, and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block may be shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If your ISP has misconfigured its proxy, you can try bypassing it by logging into Wikimedia's secure gateway at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/. For more information about open proxies and what you can do, please see the WikiProject on open proxies.
It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of SummerThunder.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/FabulousRain

Contents

[edit] Disruptive activity

Please understand that Wikipedia policy defines vandalism as "any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Adding links to a supposed news-related blog (which is actually a website created to disparage Wikipedia) constitutes vandalism.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry- what are you talking about? The Website is for the study of the Charle Manson murders. There may be an article on there now disparaging Wikipedia or there may not. However the link is very valid indeed. Read more than one aticle. Blatant Nothing. LordJimmy165.228.131.12 08:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, and just minutes after I left that message the lead story at that blog is replaced with something completely different. No trace of the former lead post. None at all. It wasn't moved down the list, as all the others have been. It wasn't replaced with a link. It was simply removed. *Poof* -- gone. As for the purpose of that blog, it seems to have nothing to do with the Tate-Labianca story. It is a random collection of posts on a wide range of topics. Please read What to link and Links normally to be avoided. SWAdair | Talk 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure of what you speak. Perhaps it is late and you are having New Years hangover a bit longer. The site is solely for the study of the Tate LaBianca Case. Perhaps with respect you read a different site? Need a better computer? Because the first post is about Sharon Tate, the second is about New Years goals of the site, the third is an award for the best Manson Family site, the fourth is about Squeaky Fromme a member of the Manson Family, so is the fifth,the sixth is about the Manson Girls singing, then three posts about Gypsy, a Manson Family Member. Nope, I submit maybe you are up too late. And BTW, "LOL" constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's policy on Civility. May I refer you to it? LordJimmy165.228.131.12 09:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The "LOL" was in reference to the irony of how quickly the lead story changed. Okay, the articles all now relate to the Manson family, although some only tangentially. I won't revert again but I will check that blog occasionally to see if the "Shitipedia" blog returns. If it does, then those links will be reverted. So long as the blogs relate to the stated purpose of the blog I see no reason to revert. SWAdair | Talk 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your comments, with respect, the only articles I find on there going back TWO FULL YEARS are somehow Manson Family related. Surely you are not thinking that two years worth of articles magically appeared? I am seriously thinking you clicked some other link. Anyway, sleep tight. LordJimmy165.228.131.12 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just it. I didn't click any link. I copy/pasted the link from the diff page into the address bar. I kept the same URL in the clipboard memory and pasted it each time I checked the site. The same URL, same page layout, etc. It wasn't a matter of a mis-click. It is possible that the site had been hacked and someone was playing around with it at the time I initially checked it. It could be nothing more than coincidence that you were adding the link at the time that happened. Because of the nature of the blog when I checked it, it appeared that the link was purposefuly misleading. From your comments it appears that you were unaware of the "Shitipedia" nature of the blog and that you were editing in good faith. I will assume that you were unaware of the change in the blog. I apologize for assuming you were making bad-faith edits. I do hope, however, that you can understand how I might have reached that conclusion, given that what I saw upon first checking it is quite different from what is there now. Still, I do apologize and hope you have a better day than what I've given you so far.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 09:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see my follow-up further down this page at User talk:165.228.131.12#Blog. SWAdair | Talk 07:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Sharon Tate. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Gwernol 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack warning

With regards to your comments on Patricia Krenwinkel: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Vandalising What Pages?

Please do not say that I am vandalising pages when I am clearly acting by Wikipedia policy point 11. I also suggest that you look at Use of edit summaries in disputes. Have a good day. Yours, Philip Gronowski Contribs 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Khoikhoi 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain purpose of Chinese singers page

Hi, I assume you are the same editor as FabulousRain. May I suggest you explain what is the point of the Chinese singers page on its Discussion page, before you create any more links to it? If it ends up being deleted then someone will have to go and remove all those links. Regards, Fayenatic london 22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blog

Earlier I was willing to accept the admittedly unlikely possibility that the blog had been vandalized somehow and that the owner was not the one who published the post disparaging Wikipedia. I see now that the mysteriously-vanishing post has returned. I must now assume that either the owner posted it himself or that he has lost administrative control of his site. Either way, you can expect that link to be reverted. The blog was only loosely related to the murders as it was. With the addition of this off-topic post, the only purpose of which is to disparage Wikipedia and has nothing to do with the murders, the blog has crossed from borderline to not acceptable. Please do not re-insert links to that blog. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 07:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You get a special prize for yelling at this guy to revert the links to his very popular blog after they had already been reverted by a Canadian child. The prize is in the mail, you'll have to sign for it though. StonedBushbyStonedBushby 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About your edit of Keystroke logging

Could you please discuss it on the Talk:Keystroke_logging as requested before removing it? The links are to freeware and I would think they would be useful to readers. Aarontay 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also do take note of Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule, as noted above. Aarontay 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Khoikhoi 05:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Um, to my knowledge this is a shared ip. Is not there a way so you can block only this ip but not the accounts using it? I am unable to register for an account as recommended due to the ip block.))"

Decline reason: "We do not permit editing from an open proxy. Please contact your ISP to determine how to disable your use of their proxy. — Yamla 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "maybe I haven't been clear enough. This is not an open proxy, but rather a shared ip. Surely you must be aware of the difference."

Decline reason: "No, you were clear enough... but this IP is functioning as an anonymous proxy. As Yamla said above, please contact your ISP to determine how to disable use of their proxy.— Isotope23 14:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This ip most certainly does not function as an anonymous proxy.--165.228.131.12 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's got to be someone who uses reason around here. Please help me.--165.228.131.12 14:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)