User talk:Bdentremont

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hongzhi

Would you happen to have a picture of Li Hongzhi you could release under GFDL? ;-) Actually, maybe I put the picture up before discovering that Falun Gong released their images for free distribution, so perhaps we could use it under 'public domain'... Ohconfucius (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FG an "important phenomenon"?

Hey there, could you please take a look at this discussion? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the Deuce

In response to your comment here, since you seem to be pretty expert, can I ask you to make any contributions you can on here & here? These can use all the defenders they can get (note the remarks here, in particular), & any expert attention can only help. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 9, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Web Host IP Block

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).

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

Request reason:

I have recieved notice that "Editing from 108.174.48.0/21 has been blocked ..." as an "open proxy" and would request that my specific address, 108.174.52.25, be removed from this range. I'm using it as a proxy and a web server, but it is anything but "open". I've possessed this IP address for over one year. It is virtual private server with only 5 authorized users, all family and close friends. You could find my name, phone number, and street address with reverse DNS and WHOIS records on www.dentremont.us, so I'm certainly not hiding anything. I'm sure that some of my internet neighbors are running open proxies on their virtual hosts, but would appreciate it if you could be more selective in the blockage, since use of this SSH connection gets me around some problems in foriegn travel. Thanks and best regards, Bdentremont (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If I am reading your last comment correctly, there is no longer a need for this unblock request. Should you wish to pursue the issue, feel free to place another request. --auburnpilot talk 01:55, 16 April 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.

We can change your user rights so that your account could edit from this IP. Will this suit you?

Alas, we don't have a technical ability to remove individual IP addressed from a blocked range, and, as you mentioned, this range indeed contains open proxies and has a high chance of hosting new proxies in the future.

If you wish to unblock not just your account, but the IP itself, please post a request on WP:OP so that other users who deal with proxies on wikipedia could weigh in. Materialscientist (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see any reason for Materialscientist to undo his three-year proxy block of 108.174.48.0/21. It seems that this range, at least in the past, was associated with proxyforusa.com. The site at www.dentremont.us is hosted from that range, though I can't tell by what ISP. We usually block web hosting ranges regardless of whether they are providing a home for proxies, sometimes using the tag {{webhostblock}}. IP editing from that range is shut down unless it stops being a hosting range. I agree that Bdentremont might consider asking for IP block exemption which would allow him to edit through this hardblock using his registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of {{webhostblock}} since it doesn't appear to be mentioned on Wikipedia:Open_proxies or Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses. I brought this up largely because it appeared that a couple of thousand IP addresses were blocked in error and contravention of policy. However, you guys obviously put a lot of effort and thought into this, and if this is how it's done in practice, I'm not going to argue with that. I've got alternative means of getting to the internet, including somewhat less convenient tunnel through my office when necessary. If user:Materialscientist wishes to amend the block notice to the more accurate {{webhostblock}}, that might clarify things, but my situation is satisfactory. Thank you both for your time. Bdentremont (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]