User talk:Truforddanes

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).

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

Request reason:

I have great banter unlike everyone else on here Truforddanes (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't care how big your banter is, it does not belong here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:38, 15 May 2015 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I wish to be unblocked as i am now trying to use my old account (as it is connected to my current email) to make positive and correct contributions to the Wikipedia pages that i have useful knowledge about. Previously i was blocked for a very valid reason (vandalism) as at the time i found it amusing to do so and then post proof of said changes to social media. It has been nearly a year since i was blocked and also refused the right to be unblocked. I realize that my actions were wrong.

Decline reason:

No response to question in over 3 days. PhilKnight (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2016 (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.

What other account(s) have you used since this one was blocked? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe that, according to WP:BLANKING, declined unblock requests may not be removed as long as the block is active. Favonian (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

It has been 3 years since my original block, I acknowledged in my previous appeal that my behaviour had been immature and influenced by the desire for attention on social media. It wasn't as funny as I seemed to think and I certainly regret it now. I don't often wish to edit Wikipedia pages however sometimes when I feel I have a piece of information that isn't already on a page I do wish I could access the edit page so I can make useful contributions to the pages of subjects I have an interest in. I have no interest in vandalism of any sort and will not engage in that or any similar behaviours because I realise that it can impact the quality and truthfulness of information received by another user. To answer the question asked in my previous appeal, I have not been using another Wikipedia account in the meantime, I just have not been logged in and not been editing since my original block. I understand that my wording in the previous appeal made it sound like I may have created another account, however, I have not. As I mentioned previously I do not often have the desire to edit pages or add information and therefore do not log in often, especially since being blocked, this is the reasoning for me being unable to answer the question within the required timeframe. If you have any questions I will be more than happy to answer and will try to log in every day for the next couple of days to make sure I do not miss it. Edit: I have also been reading about sockpuppets while looking at other appeals, I am aware that you can use the CheckUser tool to check if i have another account using the same IP address. I encourage you to use this if you see fit as I know I have not used another account and I can't imagine any of my family have a Wikipedia account. I would like it to be taken into consideration however, that i live with 3 other people who use the same device as I do and occasionally visitors to our home may use it. Thank you.Truforddanes (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You were blocked for just a few childish silly edits several years ago. I don't think there's any reason not to let you move on from there and edit again. I hope that from now on you can edit constructively, and that you won't be blocked again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unblock?[edit]

You will need to bear in mind, of course, that all edits need to be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter, Favonian, and Oshwah: Sounds good to me. What say ye?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with it. Give em a chance :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not an admin, nor was I pinged, I did interact with them on the IRC help channel when they came asking questions regarding this. To me, they seem legit and sincere in their desire to contribute constructively. Waggie (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Favonian (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]