User talk:Nl3116

January 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Feminism, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Feminism. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2017 (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).

Nl3116 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Wikipedia Staff, it is through my humble offer that I ask I may be unblocked from editing source material on certain encyclopedia pages. The edits that I had made to the "Talk:Feminism" page where obviously vulgar, immature and simply inaccurate by all accounts. I absolutely understand that I don't deserve to be allowed to edit another Wikipedia page again after my frankly embarrassing abomination published on the Talk:Feminism page, but I would like to give you a few reasons as to why I would like to be granted a second chance to edit material. Firstly, I would like to address the fact that I was younger and grossly immature at the time of the incident, thinking that feminism is some movement for people who "whine about rights", and I couldn't have been more wrong; while I may not agree with all of Feminism's ideas, I certainly have found a new respect for those who consider themselves to be feminists, and I was actually astonished on all the things we do in fact agree upon (for your consideration, I was only 13 at the time of that edit). That being said, I look back on the ignorant comments I made then, and I've come to realize that it was actually my being banned from editing that allowed me acknowledge the stupidity and illegitimacy of my comments, and on those I grounds, I do thank Acroterian. I do not and cannot defend any of the comments made on that page, and I hope that you do not judge me as the same person I was a year and a half ago. Secondly, I would like to mention that the edit to the Talk:Feminism page was the first edit I had ever done to any encyclopedia (or Wikipedia) page ever, I was certainly not aware, due to my own lack interpretation, that an edit like the one I had done would result in an immediate, and "non-expiry" ban. Had I known the severe consequences of writing something unfit for Wikipedia, I would've certainly refrained from writing anything of the sort. It is also worth mentioning that the particular reason for wanting to be unblocked from editing is for the purposes of updating old, and outdated information on the page of a zoo that I admire wholeheartedly, the Great Plains Zoo. On this site, I want to properly change the outdated information as well as replace the outdated sources in which they hail. The final reason that I have to offer is that, in my understanding, I've already been banned from editing for a fairly substantial period of time; nearly a year and a half, as I had mentioned above. I believe that this period has allowed me to reflect on what I really want to add to Wikipedia and other encyclopedias like it, and I think it has given me amble time to grow up and mature a bit. This is all I have to offer, and I would like to close with a sincere apology to Acroterian and the Wiki Staff, and I thank you for your time and consideration.

Decline reason:

Unresponsive user. You are free to make another unblock request, once you address the concerns below. Yamla (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2018 (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.

Acroterion What is your opinion on this? 331dot (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NI3116: This edit [1] is a pretty good example of adolescent vandalism - repeating it [2] got you blocked for what should be pretty obvious reasons by now. It's important to understand that "indefinite" is just that, it's not necessarily permanent, and that redemption is possible and even desirable. If Wikipedia had been available to me at 13 (which would have been in 1972), I might have made some silly edits. I've seen a number of young editors come back from a bad start as they have matured. So given the unblock request above, I think unblocking is fine, with some stipulations that you must acknowledge:

- Edits that exhibit contempt for others are not acceptable, even when clothed in satire or attempts at humor.
- You're still only maybe 14 or 15, and while you've clearly matured and you obviously have good language skills, your judgment may not be quite as mature as you might think
- Wikipedia is the real world, and editors are expected to behave, if not professionally, at least to aspire to professional conduct, behaving as they would in a real-world work environment

If you affirm that you understand this, and that you will take a little time to understand Wikipedia policies, I'm fine with an unblock. Redemption and maturity are valuable commodities, we must encourage them. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]