User talk:Ironmansen

Bold text


 * Per WP:BLANKING, please do not remove declined unblock requests while your block is in effect. -- Kinu  t/c 03:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You are not blocked for breaking any legal agreements, you are blocked for breach of Wikipedia's policies - and Wikipedia can deny you the ability to edit this site any time it pleases, wherever you live. Now, if you want to get unblocked, I strongly suggest you stop whining about Wikipedia not being legally allowed to block you, and change your request to address your own behavior that got you blocked. And be warned that you are only likely to get this one last chance, before someone decides to revoke your ability to edit even this talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Tide rolls. I've taken your advice, I'll post a draft request below please offer any assistance if you can.

I'm very sorry for the defacing of dragonflysixtysevens talk page, and any other disruptions I might have caused by making so many unnecessary unblock requests that were attacking of other users and Wikipedias policies. I do not have any likely reasons as to why the unblock was wrong, but I believe that the block should be reversed or atleast reduced to a specific time period because:

1. I can, and previously have made very significant contributions to already existing pages 2. I wish to create legitimate pages

I promise that I will not stray outside of Wikipedias policies again, and if my unblock request is accepted I promise to make valuable contributions to the encyclepeida.
 * I'm at work presently, Ironmansen, so my reply will be delayed about 10 hours. Sorry for the delay but others may weigh in with their advice, so your wait may not be too long.  Tide  rolls  12:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My opinion
The positive first; your draft avoids blaming others and the ineffective legal deflection approach. As the draft is written it would not be declined as "non-responsive". A few points: "...and previously have made very significant contributions to already existing pages. Meh...not "pages"....page, singular: NHS, Inc..  To be frank, your expansion of that article was not sourced; that's not an irredeemable sin but it does cast the expansion in a less than favorable light. "...I promise to make valuable contributions to the encyclepeida"[sic]  That's great and I would advise that you include some commitment to walking the straight and narrow if you are unblocked.  However, Wikipedia operates on an assumption of good faith so we already take it for granted that a new user is here to help.  Once that good faith is demonstrated to be a waste, you can imagine what one's "promise" sounds like. More frankness; it will be very difficult for this account to be unblocked.  An unblock will require a leap of faith for the reviewing administrator and they would, in effect, be vouching for your future behavior. I regret that that circustances have reached this point but that's usually the result of hasty action with little, or no, discussion. One final bit of advice. Please do not blank any of your declined unblock requests or the attendant discussions. That could be construed as an attempt to avoid scrutiny and could lead to a less than optimum outcome. Good luck  Tide  rolls  00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)