User talk:4bpp

Hello!!!

Hi, this is Jobin, a new wikipedia user. I came to understand that you have an interest in Computer and related topics. I am working on a few articles related to Programming in C. Therefore, I kindly request you to help me on these topics

You may also drop your valuable suggestions on other related articles on my talk page.
Jobin (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

4bpp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am affected by a range block on 213.239.192.0/18, justified by "it being believed to be an open proxy". In fact, it belongs to a legitimate German server hoster, Hetzner Online AG, and for various reasons I tunnel my entire internet traffic through my hired server machine, which is hosted with them. Since IPs within the block are handed out on a static basis, blocking the entire range does not seem reasonable to me.

Accept reason:

unblocked range due to collateral damage -- Samir 18:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

4bpp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The above-referenced block (on 213.239.192.0/18, again) appears to have been reinstated. I would much appreciate if future blocks could be limited to the addresses actually known to operate open proxies...

Accept reason:

I have left the block in place, but have given your username exemption from it. You should now be able to edit, so long as you remember to log in.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:31, 28 April 2012 (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).

4bpp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Collateral damage from a range block. Please reinstate IPBE flag.

Decline reason:

You have made only one minor edit to article-space over the past 18 months, and I therefore cannot justify again allowing IPBE on the basis of your need, whjich clearly does not exist. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:54, 31 March 2013 (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 accepted the request.

4bpp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Repeat unblock request because I find the above justification very questionable. Before I give up on this, I would appreciate it if the following three points could be addressed: * Does this reasoning imply that if I were a new rather than returning user, I simply would be banned from editing for no reason other than that my (static, registered to my name, devoid of open proxies) IP address happens to fall into a block with several open proxies in it? * Even if the above is the case and irrespectively of whether there is any sensible justification for it, is it also the case that taking a one-year break from editing is tantamount to forever forfeiting any right to? As it stands now, there is little I can do to provide evidence of activity, short of trying to somehow get hold of an alternative IP. The circumstance that the break was in part motivated by the original sequence of blocks further contributes to a certain feeling of indignation on my end. * As I also outlined in my response below to the comments of the administrator who originally removed the IPBE, I fail to see any good reason for this policy to be upheld and plenty against. Already at this point, I think that the number of hoops I had to jump through feels very much like a punitive measure for some crime I wasn't even as much as accused for committing; having to defend myself in this fashion is far from a pleasant activity and I could have put the same energy into making plenty of actual content edits. If an IP range block prevents the creation of new accounts, what issues would even arise from making it the default policy that IP range blocks never affect logged-in users? That would seem like a basic consequence of the good-faith assumption. In the event that this request is also denied, I would appreciate it if you could at least leave me with some pointers regarding how to take this to arbitration or whatever instances there might be in place nowadays to ask for a more orderly review of such a decision.

Accept reason:

I have reinstated IPBE on your account. To address your concerns. The block wasn't intended to directly block you. Your block was unfortunately due to collateral damage. The reason why IPBE was removed from your account was more procedural and was not a result of any misbehavior, disruption, etc. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE flag removed

Hello, 4bpp. Just so you know, I have removed your IP Block Exemption flag, as it appears that it is no longer required. It does not appear as though you have edited Wikipedia in some time; IPBE is only granted on an as-need basis, and when that need no longer exists, the flag may be removed. If you encounter any difficulty editing as a result of this action, please post an unblock request using the {{unblock|your reason here}} template, mentioning the block message you are seeing. If you have any other questions, or you believe that you do still have a need for the IPBE flag, please let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ergh... I understand that one person's complaints are unlikely to change much about the policy, but honestly, if it weren't for the repeated blocking, I probably wouldn't have ceased to pursue my previous approach of performing low-effort fixes whenever I encountered small-scale mistakes to begin with (and therefore still would appear active enough for this not to have happened). Seeing how the IPBE flag is tied to a user rather than an IP, I don't see how retaining it can constitute any sort of burden on Wikipedia's normal operation, and in my opinion, a policy that says that IP block exemptions are considered "no longer needed" and should be removed in the event of longer spells of inactivity can hardly have any effects other than scaring potential contributors off. --4bpp (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript RegExp problem

I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]