User talk:91.216.181.130

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your IP address, 91.216.181.130, is registered to London Borough of Brent and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility, 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 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 the event of vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

In the event of vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled. If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for your agency or facility's administration to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time and abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for further investigation.

Some government IP addresses are considered sensitive. If blocking this IP address, determine if Wikipedia:SIP applies; if so, follow directions.

Officials and network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

November 2016

Hello. I'm letting you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Yeryry (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kwesi Appiah, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2017 (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.

May 2017

Hello, I'm Flappychappy. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to WWE The Bash— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Flappychappy (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FlyingAce. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to William Cuffay have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. –FlyingAce^✈talk 17:33, 24 May 2017 (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.

October 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hebrew language. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2017 (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.

November 2017

Hello, I'm Gary "Roach" Sanderson. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Counties of England have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jamie McHugh (February 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Drover's Wife was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jamie McHugh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jamie McHugh, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 91.216.181.130! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Hello, I'm KylieTastic. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ahmad (disambiguation) 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 Help Desk. Thanks. KylieTastic (talk) 14:47, 11 February 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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Genesis (2012), you may be blocked from editing. KylieTastic (talk) 14:51, 11 February 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Genesis (2012). KylieTastic (talk) 14:53, 11 February 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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Uncensored (2000). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TwoTwoHello (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Uncensored (2000), you may be blocked from editing. TwoTwoHello (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Road Wild (1997). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:11, 22 February 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.

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. – Gilliam (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Blocked for 2 weeks.

March 2018

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistent vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, you may be blocked from editing. Govvy (talk) 14:32, 19 October 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.

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, you may be blocked from editing. Natureium (talk) 18:25, 1 November 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.

So I just switched on the computer this morning to discover I am blocked till Christmas. I didn't get a chance to weigh in at the ANI discussion, so could you copy this post over (or better still unblock)? Re your block reason, I made sixteen edits yesterday and every one added sources to BLPs. The thread was started by Squared Circle Boxing, who appears to be a troublemaker. His/her edit summary was:

Removing due to IP's disruptive use of sources. If any editor in good standing can verify the source then that would be marvellous.

If you check the history you will see that the unsourced date of birth was added by 2A02:6B65:706A:0:4159:A533:6110:A963. True it geolocates to London, but that's unsurprising as the subjects of both articles are Londoners. The edits were made from a smartphone. I don't possess a smartphone, and if I did I wouldn't have the slightest idea of how to edit from it. All I did was notice a formatting error and correct it. So in all fairness, 2A02:6B65:706A:0:4159:A533:6110:A963 should be blocked and not me.

Best, @Ponyo: 91.216.181.130 (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a little deeper, I edited Deborah Ross (journalist) to say that she has a son. Squared Circle Boxing reverted saying Source doesn’t say any of that. My eyes must be deceiving me, because the headline on the source I provided was Deborah Ross: the truth about a 19-year-old still at home.

Best, @Ponyo: 91.216.181.130 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way to request an unblock is to follow the directions at Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Specifically, you place {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your talk page, replacing "your reason here" with, obviously your reason. Please read WP:GAB first. For reviewing admins, the ANI discussion referenced above is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents# Unsourced or poorly sourced and the block is for the many unsourced and poorly soured edits in this range. Your reliance on Companies House to support the inclusion of birthdates and personal information in BLPs is particularly problematic, especially given it has been pointed out to the IP that it's primary source that cannot be used to support such content. I also have concerns regarding your nearly exclusive use of offline sources to support the inclusion of personal info in BLPs, that can be addressed on a case by case basis as, given your history of unsourcedand poorly sourced edits, each one will have to be individually verified by researching the articles one by one to verify the content added. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My IP was 91.216.181.45 a minute ago, but has now changed to 91.216.181.130, so it's difficult to establish what "my talk page" is. Please read the following reply to Squared.Circle.Boxing which I drafted before seeing your response (Squared.Circle.Boxing's comment is at User talk:91.216.181.12):

More dissembling. The mobile link is to an edit I made, not information passed to me by another editor. I find your attitude extraordinary. This is a collaborative enterprise, and improving the sourcing is part and parcel of every editor's work. Nobody's asking you to do anything - it's easier to add a ^{[citation needed]} tag than to revert, and the expertise of the whole community is made available for that. What shoots you down in flames is that you are unable to cite a single instance of me failing to restore an edit with suitable sourcing after a revert for lack of sourcing has been performed. On your user page you point proudly to articles you created. The very first article on that list has a list of 16 fights. The section is completely devoid of references.

Your final point: what the source actually says is "you are a 19-year-old boy still living at home despite your mother's best efforts to push you out the nest:" If you cannot see that "your mother" and "my son" are referring to the same two individuals you really should look for another hobby. A quick Google of "Deborah Ross Geraint Jones" provides top search results of Mr Jones (pictured with Deborah) saying he has "a son". I also checked the electoral register - my factchecking is more thorough than yours. You will also see a source confirming that Deborah was 49 on 18 May 2011 - we have the very template for that: |birth_date {{age as of date|49|2011|05|18}}.

You finish by asking me if I did "the same" at Alana Haim. Whatever you are insinuating by that remark, the fact is that the referenced information I added to that article is still there.

Best, @Ponyo: 91.216.181.130 (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and now TylerBurden has piled in. Apart from the Companies House issue, which I resolved with no help from anyone, all of the "unnecessary" information which I sourced and returned to articles is still there. It's only him and Squared.Circle.Boxing who make a song and dance about this.

Best, @Ponyo: 91.216.181.130 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded to you and explained how to make an appeal per WP:ADMINACCT. I'm now requesting that you stop pinging me.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming farcical. I see that at Kyle Hogg Squared.Circle.Boxing removed the reference supporting the information that Kyle is the son of Willie Hogg while leaving the information in situ. Usually he removes the father's name claiming it to be a "privacy violation". He also removed his mother's name - given that she is deceased how is that a violation of her privacy? 91.216.181.130 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As thoroughly boring as this is, I'll reply to a few of your points before I disengage.
- The linked diff shows that you were aware of the issue with primary sources, and didn't care.
- This is a collaborative enterprise, and improving the sourcing is part and parcel of every editor's work. No, it's not. Improving sourcing is an option. WP:Verifiability is part and parcel of every editor's work. That's a requirement, not an option.
- A quick Google of "Deborah Ross Geraint Jones" provides top search results of Mr Jones (pictured with Deborah) saying he has "a son". What you saw on Google is irrelevant. WP:Verifiability is a requirement, not an option.
- I also checked the electoral register - my factchecking is more thorough than yours. Electoral registers are primary sources. Your factchecking is not admissible and irrelevant.
  That'll be all. Cheerio. – ².O.^Boxing 19:44, 26 November 2022 (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.