Johnno777
I'm new to Wikipedia. I don't know what the hell is going on. I move from one confusion to the other. I have never in my life come across such convoluted machinations. I have several degrees, including a doctorate and anytime I want help in any direction, I get directed deeper and deeper into the mire.
I set up a page for Robin Auld (musician) and I saw a note appended that citations and links needed to be made for verification and "Wikifying". I decided that I would try to comply one baby step at a time and blow me down, I'm told that I'm blocked because I'm an "open proxy". I know what 'open' means and what 'proxy' means, but I'm damned if I know what horrid creature I am to be blocked. Will someone please explain to me?Johnno777 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Blocking as a open proxy
editI do not have the ip address that I've been accused of having (196.46.71.251) nor have I edited articles that I have been accused of editing. My IP address is 41.56.217.191 Please unblock me forthwith.Johnno777 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Johnno777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not have the IP address that I have been accused of having it is 41.56.217.191 and I have not edited articles that I have been accused of editing
Decline reason:
I have just confirmed that the IP address you say you are using is indeed an open proxy. There is no doubt whatsoever about that, as I have used it myself to view a Wikipedia page. If that IP address is your individual computer, and you are not aware that it is configured as a proxy, then it is likely that your computer is compromised by malicious software. You need to get it checked asap. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Johnno777 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can see no block on you or your IP (it's been a hard day and I might have missed something...). An open proxy is a sort of device or setup for masking your IP address. They are usually blocked straight away. Can you give us the exact message you are getting? (I probably won't know what to do with it, but it'll save time for one of those who do...) Peridon (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, where have you been accused of anything? Peridon (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The Block Page I received!
editYou are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them.
Editing from 196.46.71.251 has been disabled by ProcseeBot for the following reason(s): Banned proxys.svg The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you believe you are not running an open proxy, the most likely cause is that another customer from your ISP who was previously assigned this IP address was running an open proxy. If this is the case, please request to be unblocked using the {{unblock}} template, or request administrator attention using {{admin!}} and indicate you are caught by an open proxy block. More rarely, your network equipment or that of your service provider may be misconfigured or compromised by malicious software (such as a virus). In some cases, this can be remedied by logging into the secure server. For more information, see the Wikiproject on Open Proxies and Wikipedia:Open proxies. (Sandbox test edit)
This block has been set to expire: 11:16, 23 January 2012.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail.
Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.Johnno777 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Johnno777 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Try logging out and logging in using the secure server - it tells you what to do on the login screen down below the boxes. Peridon (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Do a Who is on my IP Address. Following is the result!
edit41.56.217.191 my ip IP Tracing and IP Tracking (41.56.217.191) Want to trace or track an IP Address, host or website easily? With our highly reliable IP Address Location Database, you can get detailed information on any IP Address anywhere in the world. Results Include: Detailed IP Address Location, Name Of ISP, Netspeed/ Speed Of Internet Connection And Lots More. Examples: 213.86.83.116 (IP address) or google.com (Website) 41.56.217.191 IP address location & more: IP address [?]: 41.56.217.191 [Whois] [Reverse IP] IP country code: ZA IP address country: ip address flagSouth Africa IP address state: n/a IP address city: n/a IP address latitude: -29.0000 IP address longitude: 24.0000 ISP of this IP [?]: Wireless Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd Organization: Wireless Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd Host of this IP: [?]: iburst-41-56-217-191.iburst.co.za[Whois] [Trace]
My service provider is Iburst South Africa. If they have an umbrella IP address which covers several of their customers, I don't know. I don't like the tone of JamesBWatson's language when he says "the IP address YOU SAY you are using is indeed an open proxy." The IP address you say I have is also whitelisted: Whitelist IP: 196.46.71.251 - 196.46.71.251 has been whitelisted 1 time(s) and delisted 0 time(s) - Whitelist status: This IP is currently whitelisted and has been since September 21, 2011 02:40 AM PDT.
I checked Wiki's records regarding the IP address you say I am using and it gave the following report: 196.46.71.251
A user has requested a proxy check. A proxy checker will shortly look into the case.
196.46.71.251 - talk - edits - block - log - current blocks - Robtex - whois - Tor - Google - HTTP - Hash.es
Reason: An email was sent to unblock-en-l today ([Unblock-en-l] Cannot create account or edit due to blocked proxy.) about this IP address - from what the requester said, this is not an open proxy but rather a closed proxy their ISP shunts a bunch of their traffic through. When attempting to access this proxy through a web browser on the ports named in the block log, I got 403 Forbidden errors, which would support the claim that this is a closed proxy. Can someone double check this and unblock if possible? Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol unrelated.svg Not an open proxy, concur with that, IP unblocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I am am not a computer fundi. I have not spammed anybody and not committed any crimes, please don't speak to me in a tone as if I'm doing something subversive.Johnno777 (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Please Unblock
editI have not performed any action which warrants blocking. I have checked my computer for viruses and malware and it has come up clean. Unless you can cite blockable offenses committed by myself, please unblock me. I find it also very ironic that I have the founder of Wikipedia asking me for money urgently and his leutenants on the ground telling me to get lost.
Johnno777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Not committed any blockable offense
Decline reason:
You never have been personally blocked - the underlying IP address is. Note clearly, this has never been about you. I'm pleased that you have followed the advice of the people above, and appear to be editing ok now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Logged in under secure server!
editI have logged in under a secure server as suggested. Is someone able to check if my IP address has changed from the one I allegedly use? Johnno777 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hallelujah!!!!
editI logged in under the secure server ans Viola! I am not blocked!!! Johnno777 (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
All my edits and links removed!
editI spent hours last night "Wikifying" the article on Robin Auld (musician) and returned to the site this morning to find that all my work has been removed.Johnno777 (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see you've asked them to explain. One thing I'd say is, don't reference to .blogspot. No good. Nor are .wordpress, AboutUs and LinkedIn. Or wikis. Or Youtube, MySpace & Co. Look at WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
edit
Message added 18:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Jean Calleo (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you please read the message before adding external links again? — Jean Calleo (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Jean Calleo's removal of all links
editFirstly, I did not undo your editing and removal of the links I made on the Robin Auld page, because I thought that sending you a message sufficed, I undid it because you did not give me a timeous response, nor an explanation of what you meant by, or why the links were labelled, "inappropriate" by yourself. I have read the tutorial on links and it tells me that the in line links I made are acceptable.
When I attempted to use internal links to Articles already appearing in Wikipedia, in three instances, I received a message that the url I copied from the Wikipedia page from, did not exist, hence the page did not exist, and it did not allow me to make an internal link to that page.
As to you finding it unnecessary, or "inappropriate" to link to "everything" in the article, I was just trying to comply with the process of "Wikifying" the article. I see dumb, inappropriate links, everywhere, for the simplest of terms within Wikipedia, especially when I try to wade through the morass of sophistic verbosity which overwhelms a newcomer, to find out how to do the "right" thing in editing the aforementioned article.
I find it rich of you to say that the links are "inappropriate", when you know nothing about the artist, or about the genesis, metamorphosis, and current state of the eclectic music forms which have emanated out of South Africa, as well as how many of the South African musicians have found a place for their musical influences in various countries in the world and have collaborated with the biggest names in world music. When those interconnections are referenced, verified, and validated by evidences on websites,it is most certainly appropriate. It has nothing to do with egos or self praise but to verify the notability of an artist who is introduced to Wikipedia for the first time.
Your heavy handed treatment of my edits, smacks very heavily of elitism and esotericism. Instead of speaking in plain simple language and pointing a newbie in the right direction, you use Wiki jargon and code and just silently use your knowledge of the system to cut and run. I must somehow find out what I supposedly did wrong and even how I can converse with you.
If you like, continue to cut all the links I made (which you have mostly done already which I noticed when I saved new edits). I'm not interested in getting embroiled in your stupid "edit wars" because I am unfamiliar with the rules of engagement and the weaponry which I may use, and I will very gladly leave the article as it is, sans links, references and whatever other "Wikifying" things that need to be done to it. In my opinion it is juvenile to wrangle over an article on a musician which I believe to be well written. It is not about politics or religion. It's not contentious or provocative.
Furthermore, I will make a point of sending a communication to the person who started Wikipedia, and who asks for donations every time I log in to Wikipedia, to tell him that he does not stand a snowball's hope in hell of getting a penny out of me, when he has people working within his structures who do their damnedest to chase people away from participating in realizing its general aims of disseminating information for free.
At the same time, I appeal to other editors who work with these things on a regular basis to weigh in on the side of fairness and restraint when dealing with these linking issues. I am more than prepared to do the right thing, but I need to be told specifically what to do, not to be referred "read the section on..." which almost never gives a clear, concise explanation, but usually sends one off into a thousand different directions. Johnno777 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the 'inappropriate' at least in part applied to the linking of other artistes' sites, which are less relevant than referencing the subject him/her/itself. I have explained to Jean that it's a good idea to leave little notes of explanation. Everyone has a different character, and some are more inclined to listen, and some are less; some more inclined to be strict, and others are more free in attitude; some more likely to keep cool, and others are more likely to get hot (under the collar). If you find a policy hard to understand, use {{helpme}} at the bottom of your talkpage with a relevant question. Someone will be along, usually fairly quickly, and they usually know what to do, how to explain, and who to contact if that is necessary to getting a good answer. One important thing to remember, by the way, is that articles do get edited by other people. I started a draft in my userspace, and left it for quite a while because I was having trouble finding the right refs. Someone else found it, added good refs and partly rewrote it, and then it got launched. Sometimes articles can change their character - I remember one that we were trying to delete as a vanity article, with great resistance from the original author. Then, someone added a well referenced bit that changed it totally. The battle over deletion changed round, and it was kept - but it wasn't vanity any more... If you need more help, either use helpme, or possibly ask Jean or anyone else you know of. Most of us will respond to a call for help as best we can (which in my case does not include formatting references...). Peridon (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- So I can find it again quickly, I'm putting a link to the article here Robin Auld (musician). Peridon (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Last bit for now - Looking at the article, Jean's done quite a bit of tidyup. It's looking quite good. Just one thing I would advise - it could really do with one or two really independent references - newspaper or magazine stuff will do, but not the Little Twittering Mercury and Argus, or the fan club's Annual. Nor, for preference, The Sun or the National Enquirer... Peridon (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- So I can find it again quickly, I'm putting a link to the article here Robin Auld (musician). Peridon (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Some points
edit- I'm sorry you've had a somewhat rough welcome, with the proxy thing and with the confusion about your first article. I believe that once you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, you'll find these things were justified. Every website has their own rules and the way they work, things won't always be easy and smooth for every newcomer. You have been bold and decided to create a whole new article right after registering, and being bold is appreciated, but you shouldn't have even expected to be able to do everything right and not get some of your edits reverted. This happens. Learn and move on. I've been here for years and still get some of my edits undone or questioned sometimes. It's okay.
- You don't have to know every policy and guideline in order to contribute — and I'm sorry if you got the impression that anyone was implying that you should. It's perfectly fine to insert information into the article and leave it for someone else to format and wikify if you don't know how to do it yourself. (For example, some of the links you left near the bottom of the page, I incorporated them into the article as references.)
- I honestly don't know where I used jargon and code to the point of being completely undecipherable for someone new to Wikipedia. I linked you to WP:EL which is a shortcut to Wikipedia:External links, which is a guideline directly relevant to the issue we're having here: the use and mis-use of external links in articles. You're not expected to understand the whole thing immediately, just knowing that this policy exists is a good start — you're now aware there are specific rules about external links in articles. I'm not editing according to my own opinion about the links, I'm editing according to the guideline, as we all should.
- You said: "/--/ and I will very gladly leave the article as it is, sans links, references /--/" — if you leave a biographical article about a living person without references (external "proof" that the statements in the article are correct), you risk having the article deleted. All articles must be properly referenced, especially those about living persons.
— Jean Calleo (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- You said: "/--/ I undid it because you did not give me a timeous response /--/" — you left me a message and undid my edit 11 hours later. Usually you should give another editor at least 24 hours to come online again. I may edit a lot but I don't live here.
- You said: "/--/ I have read the tutorial on links and it tells me that the in line links I made are acceptable /--/" — No, it doesn't. WP:EL says that that guideline does not apply to "inline citations" — your links were not inline citations.
- Help:Link#Wikilinks — a guide on how to link to other Wikipedia articles (the links are called "wikilinks"). Basically, all you have to do is put two square brackets around a word to turn it into a wikilink. (If an article with that name doesn't exist, the link shows up as red. It's okay to leave red links.)
- You said to me: "/--/ when you know nothing about the artist /--/", and you said here: "/--/ if you know nothing about the subject matter of the article, please leave it alone and go and play somewhere else /--/" — you have no right to try to intimidate other editors away from editing an article, nobody is an owner or main maintainer of an article (guideline: WP:NOTYOURS). You know about the subject, I know about Wikipedia's policies and how to format things. Together we can make it a nice article that won't get deleted.
Robin Auld
editI'm going to go over the article again (a bit later) and describe on the article's talk page what issues there still exist, especially about the factual statements in the article and the article's sources/references (or lack thereof). I'll notify you here when your input is requested. — Jean Calleo (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Changes to Article and of attitiudes!
editI want to thank Peridon in particular, for his conciliatory and helpful attitude toward me, as well as his help, as I was overwhelmed in trying to manoeuvre through the myriad of protocols that are in place when trying to publish an article under Wikipedia's panoply.
Thanks also to Jean Calleo for a change in attitude, and (if he did the work) the amazing job of cleaning up, referencing, and generally Wikifying the article thus far. My fuse was short because I just finished a 10 year full time stint studying in a tertiary environment, and in my beyond middle age, I have a fried brain. I have a natural aversion to elitism and cliqueism and just wanted a friendly hand pointing me in the right direction.
Thank you for your contributions. They have been a great help. I shall try and familiarize myself with the protocols that are relevant to my involvement and pursuance of getting this article out there in a useful, professional manner. BTW "The Argus" is a Cape Town newspaper (which I have not referenced as of yet) with at least the same status as the top newspapers in North America and Great Britain. It's not a rag, so I don't know if you thought it was, or if you were referring to another newspaper with the same name.
I will highly appreciate it if you have any queries, or suggestions, regarding any of the references that I have thus far tendered, or you feel that any other type needs to be resourced, to notify me, and will gladly track them down and tender them. Thank you again for the work done thus far despite a hostile reactionary attitude from myself.Johnno777 (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- My attitude never changed, you just made a false judgement about it. Also, every article has a history page and you can see exactly what exactly who has changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Auld_(musician)&action=history
- I've left some notes on the talk page, to start with, here: Talk:Robin_Auld_(musician)#Some_notes_to_the_first_editor.
- And by the way, I don't work for Jimmy Wales. I'm a volunteer, just like you. We're completely equal. — Jean Calleo (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
A proper welcome
editYou never got a proper welcome, so I'll leave this here. It's a template message but hopefully there's something useful in there:
|
One link from there I want to highlight: Wikipedia:Questions. You're not stuck with me or other editors who you randomly come across — there exist different discussion pages where you can turn to for a third opinion by an uninvolved editor. — Jean Calleo (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)