User talk:2A02:C7F:B416:3000:406C:FFD7:660:B013

Attention:

This IP address, 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:406C:FFD7:660:B013, is registered to Sky Broadband, UK. 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).

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism (as caught by filters). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: }. Alexf^(talk) 22:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

2A02:C7F:B416:3000:406C:FFD7:660:B013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Would you be good enough to explain why this has happened? Have you read removed improperly referenced date of birth, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people? For those with no DOB source whatsoever, do you think it is an acceptable situation to keep DOB’s completely unsourced? Have you individually gone through each edit I have made and examined each one carefully? Can you state on which basis vandalism has occurred and essentially, if any of my edits are unfounded or incorrect? If you cannot answer those questions, do you think this block has any reasons to stand whatsoever?

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking because indeed you are doing a quite appropriate task, but I cannot guarantee you won't be immediately blocked if you continue doing the same thing. We get a TON of date vandalism, almost all of it from unregistered users. It sets off a noisy alarm. So does new users removing references from an article. This is a job much better done by a logged in account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better source needed or Citation needed templates

Hello. Having looked at the linked discussion in your edit summaries, it a. was held in the wrong forum and b. was only contributed to by four users with minimal policy referencing. I recommend re-instating the DOBs but with a Better source needed or Citation needed template, since the priority of including key facts such as DOBs in pages is why said templates exist. Thanks. Alex (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please come join the conversation here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:58, 15 February 2021 (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.