User talk:Ged Haywood

Welcome!

Hello Ged Haywood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

At Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful — there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin (t) 12:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Ged Haywood (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 2001:470:6976:44:82EE:73FF:FE01:27F0.
This is the address of my laptop when it is at my place of work.
Please unblock all of 2001:470:6976::0/48.
I am personally responsible for this IPv6 range.
The IP block is provided to me by Hurricane Electric by private arrangement.
Interfaces using these IPs are all located at my premises in Alfreton, Derbyshire, DE55 4RD, England.
There is no colocation at this site.
.

Decline reason:

A procedural decline since, as you are a registered user caught in a rangeblock, there is nothing I or any admin can do on our own that can help you. You will have to go through the process of requesting IP block exemption, which I am hopeful that you will be able to get as it appears that although you edit very infrequently, you have done so productively. Good luck! — Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2021 (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.

Unblock request.

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

Ged Haywood (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 2001:470:6976:44:82EE:73FF:FE01:27F0.
This is actually the address of one of my laptops - one which I use at work.
The IP is part of my IPv6 /48 netblock, which is provided by Hurricane Electric.
The /48 is not at a colocation facility, it is physically located at my business premises in Derbyshire, England.
I am, personally, entirely reponsible for it.
I am sure that, if you investigate, you will find that no IP in it has ever been used abusively.
Please unblock the entire /48 (2001:470:6976::0/48).
Thank you for your attention. Ged Haywood (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have granted you the "IP block exempt" user right. That should fix things up. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. --TuomoS (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd hardly call what I wrote original research but it certainly could do with citing some references. That's one of the reasons that I commented as I did when I did the edit.

Do you think the addition would be acceptable if fully adorned with references, or would it also not be acceptable for other reasons?

My objective as I tried to say in the title was to give some perspective, because a lot of discussion on the subject is irrational. Ged Haywood (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find the information in some reliable sources, then it should be OK. Your Edit summary suggested that you presented your own calculations, which is against Wikipedia's guidelines (except if they are "routine calculations", such as basic arithmetic). --TuomoS (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]