User talk:SeanLegassick

A "bad link" is slang for a link that no longer functions. But I checked again and it's working, so I put it back. It's a very good link, by the way. --Ephilei 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Over the last couple of days, I've come across your work on Wikipedia a number of times. In every instance, your contributions to each article have been immensely positive. Congratulations, and, thank you for helping make Wikipedia great! Justen 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the notes I added to the talk pages for the sacha baron cohen article. specially the ones to the [1] 209.52.60.83 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not klymen. I don't really care about this whole thing either. I just think It's wrong to take something verifiable out, because someone's gut feeling is that it's wrong. Jack's case is not reasonable doubt and klymen is right in his argument. If it was reasonable I would have agreed to take it out. But you guys seem to give some random guy in wikipedia's talk pages who says he's Cohen's cousin more credit than the guradian. 209.52.60.83 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to take in to account that not a lot of focus was on Sacha Baron Cohen before his Borat Movie. He might have been big in the UK, but here in North America he was simply a cult figure. Once his movie hit theaters all these articles surfaced. I bet you, you'll find very few articles about him before the borat movie, left alone articles that would talk about his family in detail. Either way, I believe the Persian Jew should stay, not that I am a Jew or Persian like Klymen, simply becuase I think someone's gut feeling and speculations should not be used to take out verfiable facts. If it the guardian is wrong then solid evidence will surface. If it's not wrong then we're taking out a fact simply because someone thinks the guardian is wrong with out any evidence. 209.52.60.83 19:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not speak for the Guardian writers. Just contact the writter of that article and see what's up. Don't wait for klymen to do it. If you're right, then by all means. I would take it out myself. The only reason I'm taking the stance I'm taking is because your arguments are not valid enough to take it out. I couldn't care less if his mother was Persian/chinesse/Hindu/Martian whatever. I believe it's wrong to take out what is verfiable simply because someone puts forth a logicaly invalid argument. 209.52.60.83 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is once again restoring the apparently faulty information about his mother's background to the article. If you could rejoin the discussion/editing of this article, maybe it can once again be settled. Regards, All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (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).

SeanLegassick (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 45.146.8.97. I am connecting through Community Fibre Ltd, a fairly new ISP providing consumer-grade fibre optic broadband to homes in London, UK. Possibly the IP range is incorrectly present in the block list due to prior non-consumer use? SeanLegassick (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hoo boy. In this case I can't go through my usual explanations as to how I can't unblock a block that isn't on a user account and how difficult it is to lift a proxy block (they're based on technical evidence that probes the IP, not any list). But ... in this case the 45.146.8.0/22 range is globally blocked from all Wikimedia projects, so it's above my pay grade (ha ha). Community Fibre, particularly if they're new, might want to know about this ... I would like to think that configuring their IP to make proxy use possible wasn't part of their business plan.

You can of course edit from IPs on other ranges, but that's not what you paid for, is it? Your best remedy is getting IP block exemption, which in this case has to be requested at Meta. — Daniel Case (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2024 (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.