User talk:71.195.135.161

Attention:

This IP address, 71.195.135.161, is registered to Comcast Cable Communications Inc.. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact them to report abuse. Contact information may be available in the WHOIS report.

If you are editing from this IP address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for the owner of the IP to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time.

If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

Blocked

This IP has been blocked for one month for violations of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy, particularly on Twink (gay slang). You were warned. Neıl 龱 10:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Firstly, I wasn't warned. Secondly, how is an image that is on Commons and freely usable and with no copyright, a BLP violation???? Thirdly, a month seems rather long for a first block, does it not?

Decline reason:

You're not a new editor; you have plenty of experience as a registered user, as well as plenty of warnings and blocks there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:11, 15 June 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Again, the issue hasn't been resolved or answered. How is an image that is on Commons and freely usable and with no copyright, a BLP violation????

Decline reason:

The image may not be a BLP violation, but your use of it in that article was. Plus, you're a sock. — Blueboy 96 19:28, 15 June 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a sock since my main account is retired and has a big freaking box that says so. Duh. Again, the image is not a BLP violation. Further, a month is a long time for an IP address that could end up belonging to someone else.

Decline reason:

Clear breach of WP:BLP and vandalism. Further abuse of the unblock request will result in this page being protected. Gwernol 21:43, 15 June 2008 (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.

The warning was on Talk:Twink (gay slang). I didn't even know this IP related had an actual account, but have figured out now. As regards the reason for your block - the image is not a BLP violation, and nobody said it was. Placing it on Twink (gay slang), however, is. Your IP appears static, with all edits on it coming from you. You are posting a lot of unblock requests - someone will probably end up protecting this page if you carry on. Neıl 龱 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. A month block for restoring a free image to an article that had been there for months. What about all the other images of people on Wikipedia that are being used. Autofellatio is a good example. What about the guy in the article sucking his own cock?? Or Bear (gay slang) which features free pictures of people. I mean seriously, this is total bullshit. The only thing I'm guilty of is not knowing that a free image of someone can't be used in an article per BLP and that sure as fuck doesn't warrant a month block. You just came along and removed the image from the article, citing BLP but not explaining on the talk page or in the summary why it was a BLP violation.. so for people who don't know that a free image can be a BLP violation, how the hell are we supposed to know if you don't give a reason why. All you said on the talk page was BLP APPLIES but BLP doesn't say SHIT about images anywhere. This is a mountainous pile of bullshit because fuck, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons doesn't have the word image in it anywhere. Total total total bullshit. And Gwernol called it vandalism?? WHEN the fucking image has been in the article for MONTHS????? Did I mention this was total bullshit?? 71.195.135.161 (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that your immediate reaction upon seeing an edit marked "BLP" was to revert it speaks volumes. Neıl 龱 07:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It speaks volumes because I didn't agree that it was BLP. I didn't agree because BLP doesn't say anything about images and because it's a fucking free image with no copyright, freeable to be used however wherever, hosted on Commons. Had you took the time to explain why it is BLP on the talk page, this could have been avoided. It was just quicker to remove the image and block anyone that reverted. 71.195.135.161 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

loser —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillyJulia (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 June 2008 (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.