 Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your , so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.  Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. |
These types of services are commonly used for abusive editing and circumventing Wikipedia policies, so Wikipedia blocks them as a preventive measure — even if you personally haven't done anything wrong.
How to fix it:
- Turn off VPNs, proxies, or tools like iCloud Private Relay (for Apple users) or Microsoft Edge Secure Network. This is the most frequent reason users encounter this block.
- Try a different connection. Switch between Wi-Fi and mobile data, or use a home network instead of a public or work one.
- Whitelist Wikipedia. You may be able to whitelist Wikipedia from your VPN so that connections to Wikipedia aren't through a VPN service. Instructions for whitelisting Wikipedia on iCloud Private Relay can be found here.
- Still blocked? If you believe you are not running an anonymizing proxy or Tor, you should consider checking the configuration to make sure it is accurate. Sometimes the configuration for your network is changed without your knowledge, sometimes by malware. In truly exceptional circumstances, you may request IP block exemption. Approval is limited and based on specific criteria, and you should only request it if you have no other way to edit Wikipedia.
Note: These blocks are about the type of internet connection, not your actions. We appreciate good-faith contributors and want to help you get editing again.
{{unblock|reason=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of an open proxy provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not an open proxy provider.
|
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 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Blocked
Khoikhoi 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
165.228.131.12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= 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.)) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1= 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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1= 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.)) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |