Jump to content

User talk:FDR: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
FDR (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
FDR (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
{{unblock reviewed|reason= The reason I was banned is because Flyer22 said my editing was sloppy, careless, unsourced, and erratic. I got angry at her and started harassing her. I agree to not harass other editors in the future. Another reason was Malke2010 and Flyer22 both said that I edit warred. I agree not to do that in the future. Another reason was that I used sock puppets. I agree not to do that in the future. I also agree to only make good edits. Even though I used a sock recently when I appealed my block from the sock I made clear I would not use more than one account without permission if the ban was lifted. I also only made good edits from that sock, and I think that should be taken into consideration. That I have matured as an editor. The sock was ECayce187. I agree to stop using more than one account.|decline=Under the circumstances, I think we could take a [[WP:STANDARD OFFER|standard offer]] approach in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)}}
{{unblock reviewed|reason= The reason I was banned is because Flyer22 said my editing was sloppy, careless, unsourced, and erratic. I got angry at her and started harassing her. I agree to not harass other editors in the future. Another reason was Malke2010 and Flyer22 both said that I edit warred. I agree not to do that in the future. Another reason was that I used sock puppets. I agree not to do that in the future. I also agree to only make good edits. Even though I used a sock recently when I appealed my block from the sock I made clear I would not use more than one account without permission if the ban was lifted. I also only made good edits from that sock, and I think that should be taken into consideration. That I have matured as an editor. The sock was ECayce187. I agree to stop using more than one account.|decline=Under the circumstances, I think we could take a [[WP:STANDARD OFFER|standard offer]] approach in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)}}
:::I'll accept the standard offer approach and work on the Irish and Scots wikipedias for 6 months before coming back.--[[User:FDR|FDR]] ([[User talk:FDR#top|talk]]) 18:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I'll accept the standard offer approach and work on the Irish and Scots wikipedias for 6 months before coming back.--[[User:FDR|FDR]] ([[User talk:FDR#top|talk]]) 18:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|reason= I am NOT asking to be unblocked, I am asking if the WP: OFFER can still be extended to me. A certain user was posting on my talk page on another account after it was banned. And this user was insulting me intentionally to try to get me to respond so she could use my words against me. She says I do a poor job on all wikis, but there is one I have done at least a mediocre job on, simple English wiktionary, https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PaulBustion88. I made no jokes there, was not disruptive in any way, and only made constructive edits. If I did a good job of editing there for a year could I come back and ask for WP:Offer, and if I apologize for anything wrong I did and agreed not to do it anymore?}}

Revision as of 01:19, 9 May 2015

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).

FDR (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This is my original account. I will not troll, make jokes, etc, anymore. I will only make constructive edits.

Decline reason:

You were using sockpuppet accounts as recently as 4 days ago...I odn't quite see you understanding the issues involved here. only (talk) 12:16, 31 January 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).

FDR (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The reason I was banned is because Flyer22 said my editing was sloppy, careless, unsourced, and erratic. I got angry at her and started harassing her. I agree to not harass other editors in the future. Another reason was Malke2010 and Flyer22 both said that I edit warred. I agree not to do that in the future. Another reason was that I used sock puppets. I agree not to do that in the future. I also agree to only make good edits. Even though I used a sock recently when I appealed my block from the sock I made clear I would not use more than one account without permission if the ban was lifted. I also only made good edits from that sock, and I think that should be taken into consideration. That I have matured as an editor. The sock was ECayce187. I agree to stop using more than one account.

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, I think we could take a standard offer approach in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 03:26, 2 February 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.

I'll accept the standard offer approach and work on the Irish and Scots wikipedias for 6 months before coming back.--FDR (talk) 18:18, 23 March 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).

FDR (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I am NOT asking to be unblocked, I am asking if the WP: OFFER can still be extended to me. A certain user was posting on my talk page on another account after it was banned. And this user was insulting me intentionally to try to get me to respond so she could use my words against me. She says I do a poor job on all wikis, but there is one I have done at least a mediocre job on, simple English wiktionary, https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PaulBustion88. I made no jokes there, was not disruptive in any way, and only made constructive edits. If I did a good job of editing there for a year could I come back and ask for WP:Offer, and if I apologize for anything wrong I did and agreed not to do it anymore?


Please include a decline or accept reason.


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.