User talk:P004ME2
P004ME2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Standard offer
Hey guys, I've been itching to get back into good standing and correct errors here on the Wikipeda wherever I might see them. It's been way longer than the half-year waiting period to enact the standard offer; in fact, it's been almost three years.
I understand that playing by the rules requires us to do bold/revert/discuss cycles with normally only one account instead, or only with multiple accounts when given permission to have them and we have declared that they are our alternates, and I agree to play that right way (not abuse multiple accounts). But I don't think I have a good excuse for an alternate account yet. I would like to learn why they are sometimes allowed and thought of as needed in some cases, but for now let's just work with me on this one account. Okay?
One thing the standard-offer guide says is that apologies aren't necessary; just an ownership of your past wrongdoings and a sincere description of how you'll improve your actions from those in order to do your best to help improve the project, which is what I'm doing my best to show you here right now.
When I read articles of interest here, sometimes I notice errors, as any good reader does. I used to be able to correct them immediately. Sometimes I see places where such-and-such thing could be more specific, or more general, or less wordy, or whatever, and want to take the appropriate actions to clean those problem areas up so that they actually make sense and read how an encyclopedia should read. And of course I want to clean up vandalism whenever I see it too. Then I also know there are places that aren't really erroneous or unclear, but for whatever reason, just don't follow a certain style of flow, namely, that they don't match the prescribed style from the manual. So that's when I'll try to match the article to that style.
But there can be times when another editor or few don't agree with the changes I've made, even though I think the improvements should be obvious to them. Back in those days, I'd just use a sock to try to take on more consensus weight. Right? But now I'll do things the right way. So instead of socking, I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page and then request other editors to discuss the problem so that we can find an agreeable solution. I know this is the right way to "play the Wiki," and I want to do it this way from now on.
I hope that my attempts to explain things thus far--especially the comparison between how I sock-puppeted before and how I'll do my best to follow the rules now--will show you that I really am being sincere and do want to play the game without cheating, and now deserve to be unblocked in order to prove that to you by resuming my making of improvements to this project.
Thanks to the first admin. who understands my sincerity here and thus grants me my request. But if you still have any concerns, please go ahead and bring them up and I'll do my best to address them and make any corrections that may apply.
Decline reason:
We usually don't unblock sockpuppet accounts. Make an unblock request from your original account SummerFunMan. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2017 (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.
P004ME2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
== Standard offer == Hey guys, I've been itching to get back into good standing and correct errors here on the Wikipeda wherever I might see them. It's been way longer than the half-year waiting period to enact the standard offer; in fact, it's been almost three years. One thing before I go on to my main message here is this: While this is my sock account instead of my original account, I'm asking to have this account unblocked instead of the original, simply because I like this user name better. One of you reviewers said, "We usually don't unblock sockpuppet accounts." Okay, I guess that's fine, but then that word "usually" leaves room for UNusual times when you do still unblock socks instead of their originals. Right? I used a ping to ask her about that, but she just goes on her merry way doing other work and not even acknowledging me anymore. Why do you guys have such a hard time continuing a discussion until a question is completely answered? So I ask you now: Would there really be any harm unblocking this account instead of the original, and if so, then what do you believe that might be? And when are the times you do unblock a sock instead, since she said "don't usually," meaning that you still do on occasion? And would whoever's reading this now, preparing to decide on whether to unblock me, please be willing to discuss a question through all its follow-up replies until the concern is resolved? I understand that playing by the rules requires us to do bold/revert/discuss cycles with normally only one account instead, or only with multiple accounts when given permission to have them and we have declared that they are our alternates, and I agree to play that right way (not abuse multiple accounts). But I don't think I have a good excuse for an alternate account yet. I would like to learn why they are sometimes allowed and thought of as needed in some cases, but for now let's just work with me on this one account. Okay? One thing the standard-offer guide says is that apologies aren't necessary; just an ownership of your past wrongdoings and a sincere description of how you'll improve your actions from those in order to do your best to help improve the project, which is what I'm doing my best to show you here right now. When I read articles of interest here, sometimes I notice errors, as any good reader does. I used to be able to correct them immediately. Sometimes I see places where such-and-such thing could be more specific, or more general, or less wordy, or whatever, and want to take the appropriate actions to clean those problem areas up so that they actually make sense and read how an encyclopedia should read. And of course I want to clean up vandalism whenever I see it too. Then I also know there are places that aren't really erroneous or unclear, but for whatever reason, just don't follow a certain style of flow, namely, that they don't match the prescribed style from the manual. So that's when I'll try to match the article to that style. But there can be times when another editor or few don't agree with the changes I've made, even though I think the improvements should be obvious to them. Back in those days, I'd just use a sock to try to take on more consensus weight. Right? But now I'll do things the right way. So instead of socking, I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page and then request other editors to discuss the problem so that we can find an agreeable solution. I know this is the right way to "play the Wiki," and I want to do it this way from now on. I hope that my attempts to explain things thus far--especially the comparison between how I sock-puppeted before and how I'll do my best to follow the rules now--will show you that I really am being sincere and do want to play the game without cheating, and now deserve to be unblocked in order to prove that to you by resuming my making of improvements to this project. Thanks to the next reviewer who understands my sincerity here and thus grants me my request. But if you still have any concerns, please go ahead and bring them up and I'll do my best to address them and make any corrections that may apply. And remember: will you please tell me some examples of times when you do the unusual thing of unblocking a sock instead of its original account? P004ME2 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See below. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2017 (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.