User talk:NYCSlover

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have now had talk page access revoked. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access restored so that user may request unblocking. —DoRD (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I only arrived here at Wikipedia to edit the projects related to the ones that I love such as the New York City Subway and television programming as well as some video games. I will not be evading blocks anymore on my current IP address. But I really want to continuing editing and help to improve the NYCS project at Wikipedia. I will be civil towards the other editors and not have any grudge against anyone. I just really don't like others delivering degrading remarks and Ad hominem to me one by one. I am not going out of way to vandalize the project and hurt anyone else from helping to create a great encyclopedia. NYCSlover (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since ten days have elapsed since you said you intended to respond the same evening or the next day, I am closing this request. However, you may make another unblock request if you do come back and respond to the offer. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2012 (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.

Between the significant socking and then the actions that led to the talkpage being locked, there's no way the user should be re-released upon the community yet. They even suggest the behavior may recur (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am always willing to consider the possibility of letting an ex-vandal back in. I am prepared to bet that if Wikipedia had been around when I was 13 I would have been pretty disruptive, but would have settled down by the time I was 15 or so, and I am perfectly willing to accept that editors can genuinely reform, so I quite often give second chance unblocks. However, in your case, there are some problems which have to be dealt with before unblocking can be considered as a realistic possibility.
You have a history (in your various accounts and IP addresses) of extreme abuse, ranting and swearing at editors, threatening them with various things, including death, and you have repeatedly declared your intention of vandalising and other disruptive editing. With that history I think we need more of an indication than you have given above that you recognise and accept what you have done wrong. Also, although you do say that you will be civil, virtually in the same breath you say, in effect, "but it wasn't my fault". Accepting that you weren't civil, and saying that you will be in the future, is an important part of the way forward, but it is only part. You also need to accept full responsibility for what you have done. To use the fact that others have made what you regard as "degrading remarks" to explain the gross outbursts you made is, frankly, absurd, and if you honestly can't see that then it is doubtful whether you will be capable of editing cooperatively. Please note that I am spending a significant amount of time writing this message. With a small fraction of the amount of time and effort it is taking me, I could have written a brief note saying "no" to your unblock request. I have taken this trouble not to emphasise how wrong you have been, but because I hope that you can eventually be welcomed back as a constructive editor, but that will not happen unless you realise that you will have to move quite a bit further than you have done so far. You say "I am not going out of way to vandalize the project", and I believe that you don't intend to do any more vandalism, but you need to accept that you have vandalised in the past, that you were 100% wrong to do so (not just 90% wrong, and 10% justified because you didn't like what others did). I think it is unlikely that any administrator will unblock you as long as there is the impression that you don't fully accept responsibility for what you have done.
Here is a suggestion that may help you to regain trust. Find an article that you think you can make significant improvements to. ("Significant improvements" means a good deal more than just changing a couple of words.) Start a new section of this talk page below here, and copy the text of the article there. Then make the edits that you would make to the article. Doing so will help to convince administrators that you really are willing to put some work into improving the encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this evening or tomorrow after school. NYCSlover (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, whatever. Like I wanna waste time by doing all that extra shit anyway. Why do you think I've never came back until now after over 5 years. I got better things to do in life such as working than spending time on social media where I'm not wanted. And for your information, I only have an interest in editing New York City Subway-related articles on this site, not anything else. But now, forget it. NYCSlover (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]