User talk:Rezal110
Rezal110 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You are wrong, I am not a backup, please open my account.I have edited a total of 24, you can check See for yourself here Please open my account .I have not ever been a hired editor by any of the subjects I have written about or edited and certainly not received money.I hope my intent and articulation is expressed clearly. I believe the block is no longer necessary because I have completely owned my errors and this is a first time offense. I am trying to make amends by describing my future corrected action and stating my good will. I am sorry this happened. I appreciate a second chance. This is to state that I understand why I have been blocked: *(UPE), with regards to articles about living persons. As earlier stated, I only contacted Aaron Church as regards to the image copyright issue. I acknowledge my fault in this, as I shouldn't have. I also maintain that even though I had contacted his church, I have NOT been paid for any of the articles, the same gos for the Dennis Burton, Bishnu Adhikari, Geoffrey Kwok, and Bonnie Caroll pages. I hereby request that the block be lifted. No further contacts will be made with article owners for image rights or anything else. *Oh wow, a day away from Wikipedia and all this! I admit I made an honest mistake by talking to someone and then writing about them, which I admitted above beforehand. I have spoken to them since and they explained to me that they did indeed post an ad for themselves somewhere and that after I told them I could help them they had asked the person they hired to remove what they did. I also admit that when I went here to write about them I could find next to nothing as references, but felt personally pressured to try for them anyways. I've only met them a handful of times and was trying to help because I knew what they were doing (having someone write about them), and that was also a mistake. I can see that this has brought suspicion on me generally, which is sad for me as I never intended to create a problem and love to volunteer here. I have read and understood what advertising is and looked at the articles I chose to create and see that some may not have had the best sources, and am not asking for any user rights because of that. I understand why they were removed. I am willing to comply with any disclosures that are felt are necessary even if I have never been here to advertise. I love to edit though, and I am asking to be able to do so, with any restrictions you feel are necessary - I can stay away from making pages, can only use the Article for Creation wizard, or can only edit artist pages (my main area of downtime interest). I promise to edit faithfully and tinker away, and truly apologize if it is felt that I was adding pages that should not be here (I say more on this in the third paragraph). *I also wanted to say that I have more than ten thousand edits on Wikipedia that show I can offer a lot to here, I have spent time fighting vandalism, reviewing new pages, fixing typos, filling out lead paragraphs, cutting down spammy material (especially on academic pages, my private pet peeve), tagging pages that didn't have enough sources, and many other things. I believe this shows a long period of participation in multiple areas over many years, so if I am restricted from making pages or only using Articles for Creation, I believe there are many areas of Wikipedia that I can help with. I apologize again and hope that I can continue being a positive part of Wikipedia, and will not ever edit a page again if I know them personally, and avoid any areas of Wikipedia where I may have even a perceived conflict of interest. *I am in the fields of tech finance and design, and though I have never edited an entity I was involved in, I see I may have had a bias towards some subject matters that are important to me but maybe not as important in the rest of the world - car design, etc. If I am privileged enough to rejoin the Wikipedia community, I will also make sure to temper that bias in terms of determining what may or may not be notable. I can also stay away from these subject matters if there is a concern here as well about a potential conflict of interest. Thank you.
Decline reason:
You haven't even mentioned your original account, let alone addressed your block evasion and sockpuppetry. Regardless, you are not eligible for unblock consideration here and have demonstrated you shouldn't be unblocked on your original account, too. Yamla (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
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.
@Ponyo:
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.