User talk:213.149.61.113

July 2018

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Talk:Napoleon Murphy Brock, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Note: see wp:BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - DVdm (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Talk:Napoleon Murphy Brock. Natureium (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

For posterity, I did not post defamatory content, instead the issue seems to be I used the wrong kind of source ... ? -- 213.149.61.113 (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

If you find coverage that isn't a link to a database that includes no supporting information, that's worth considering. "He's in a database" isn't. We have to follow the WP:Biographies of living persons policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the link to the official sex offender database, but sadly it was removed twice already now. Just look in the history of the Napoleon Murphy Brock talk page. -- 213.149.61.113 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on living persons must follow the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. This is not open to negotiation, and as is quite specifically says, we do not "use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". The database is a public document. It cannot be used as a source. While you may think this is unreasonable, there are good reasons why this policy is in place, and you are going to get nowhere trying to argue against it. Either find good strong sources which comply with Wikipedia policy (see WP:RS) or accept that the content isn't going to be included. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The database entry is both a primary source and lacking enough details for us to add anything relevant to the article. If a reliable secondary source (eg, coverage by mainstream newspaper or magazine) is found, the topic can be re-raised at the article talk-page in sober terms. To be clear: links to blogs, reddit discussions, youtube, online forums etc are not good enough and will be deleted on sight per wikipedia's policy. Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I don't think that Napo is important enough to get a secondary source published about him. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the article isn't going to refer to the matter. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

213.149.61.113 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 213.149.61.113. My Internet address belongs to a single flat that I live in, not to web hosting or a colocation. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the topic you have chosen to edit using this IP, regardless of whether it is a colocation webhost or not, the block is clearly serving the purpose of preventing further disruption. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For the reviewing admin, 213.149.61.0/24 and 213.149.62.0/24 are labelled "KOLOKACIJE" by the ISP (61 whois / 62 whois). This translates to "Colocation" in Hungarian, and is also a service that the ISP offers - http://www.vipnet.hr/poslovni/kolokacija. If the reviewing admin disagrees with either or both blocks, they can be undone without the need to consult me. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second glance, the range resolves to *.cable.vipnet.hr. I should have checked that first - Please accept my apologies. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: I declined the unblock based on the nature of the edits, not due to the possibility of it being a webhost. I would be extremely hesitant of unblocking without replacing the block with a shorter one for BLP violations.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x 2 @Ponyo: - I had already unblocked by the time you'd declined. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Noted. I think we're just kicking the ball down the road somewhat here, time will tell.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, there are two things very wrong with what you said: firstly, if you think I should be blocked for trying to use a primary source (in good faith) then block me for that reason instead of something else; secondly, regarding the "disruption" I assume you are referring to - the sex offender database link I posted: Wikipedia does not warn against using primary sources prominently enough, how was I supposed to know that is big no-no, in any case a two year block seems hugely excessive for that small offence.

SQL, "KOLOKACIJE" is just the name of the IP address range, why do you think it would be significant? I do not know why it would be named how it is, but you should not put much significance in the naming, it could be, for example, outdated. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have some serious misunderstandings about what went on here. AFAICT, Ponyo's point was that it didn't seem worth exploring whether your block rationale was correct if it was clear you needed to be blocked. Per WP:NOTBURO, especially for an IP, it seems a valid point. In any case, you asked for an unblock not a correction of the block log. As for the timeframe, if you had an account an WP:INDEF block seems completely justified. Remembering of course that indef does not mean infinite. It just means until the block was no longer necessary to protect wikipedia. In a case like this, it seems reasonable to say before being blocked you needed to understand the importance of BLP, and the importance of talking about BLP concerns when someone has raised them rather than edit warring to try and keep the info. Especially when your understanding of BLP was clearly so limited. Since you are editing from an IP, it would not generally indefed because IP assignments can change. Actually for many connections they can change frequently enough that in the absence of evidence the IP is likely to stay the same, the norm is generally to only block for a fairly short time. But this is to protect other users of the IP, not to protect the editor actually behind the IP. In the case of someone editing behind a colocation IP, since using them isn't allowed without a very good reason and they tend to stay as colocation IPs for quite a while, they're generally blocked for a reasonable spam of time from the get go. In other words, while perhaps it was true that it would have been better to reduce the blocking term if it was determined you weren't editing from a colocation IP, this would likely have been done for the benefit of others not for you. Continuing to block you for indefinitely was as said likely justified. As long as you aren't editing from a colocation range, as also mention you could ublocked once you'd made it clear you understand BLP etc. Note that regardless of what is or isn't made clear, you were clearly edit warring and ignoring the warnings you were receiving. Perhaps these warnings could have been clearly, but you too could have made the efforts to find out what was wrong. Notably BLP was mentioned in the first reversion of your talk page edit. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, I'm DuncanHill. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bombing of Dresden in World War II have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.