User talk:IEatpeople4Fun
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vsmith (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
IEatpeople4Fun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My indefinite block is no longer necessary as I fully understand the editing policy and guidelines and vow not to violate them again.IEatpeople4Fun (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Firstly your username is unacceptable and would need to be changed. Secondly you have made just one, offensive, edit. Thirdly you have not responded in six days to the generous invitation, below, to explain your future editing policy. If you wish to ever be unblocked I would expect to see you post on this page three substantial, reliably sourced additions to articles that you would like to make. Just Chilling (talk) 02:27, 27 May 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.
- And, what articles do you intend to constructively edit / what are the first 3 edits you plan to make? Also, I'm not sure your username meets our username policy. SQLQuery me! 03:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
IEatpeople4Fun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
your reason here Firstly I would like to strongly and respectfully disagree with your opinion on my username "IEatpeople4Fun". And secondly I would like to say that my so called "offensive edit" was a humorous joke that I think would cause laughter in most people with a sense of humor (no offense). Thirdly, the 3 substantial edits I would like to make after I have been unbanned from editing would be: 1. On the article "Fart (word). In the beginning of the article, the author states "Fart is a word in the English language most commonly used in reference to flatulence." when in reality, fart refers to the discharge of flatulence. 2. I would also edit a section in the article "Childhood obesity". In the section "Psychological", it states "Obese children often experience teasing by their peers." but to be more specific, obese children often experience bullying which falls into a different definition than simply plane "teasing". 3. And finally, the last article I would edit would be the article "Morning wood". In the article it states in the first section "Morning wood is one of several similar slang or colloquial terms referring to the phenomenon of nocturnal penile tumescence (erection) during and immediately following sleep.[n 1]" but to be more specific, morning wood is a slang term that simply refers to an erection that one experiences when awakening from sleep.
Decline reason:
Due to your puerile sense of humour, the rather immature choice of subjects you want to edit and the fact that you cannot accept that some editors may object to your username, I think it's clear that no administrator is willing to unblock you. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:14, 2 June 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.
- I am willing to consider unblocking you, but it will make it clearer whether that would be a good idea if you can respond to the following points. (I also don't understand what is considered offensive about your user name. It looks to me no more offensive than many other joky user names.)
- It would be helpful if you could make it clear that you now understand that posting "jokes" in serious Wikipedia articles is inappropriate, and that you won't do it again. (That applies both to funny jokes and to pathetically weak jokes that are unlikely to amuse anyone with a mental age above about 14. If you really honestly think that the childish edit that you made "would cause laughter in most people with a sense of humor" then your image of the level of maturity of "most people" is rather low.)
- Your second suggested edit has some merit, but the other two look to me like mere rephrasings of the same information. Can you explain why you think your changes would be improvements? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- I read this appeal earlier, but I won't review it myself and will leave it to the good JamesBWatson (who I'd say is more forgiving than I am). My big concern is that your apparent interest in female genitalia, farting and erections is really not a million miles from juvenile trolling, and I can't help wondering if we should require you to follow the WP:Standard Offer and hopefully gain a little more maturity before being allowed back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson Thank you for agreeing with me on my username. And I would like to make it clear that I now understand that the joke I posted earlier on the wikipedia article was gross and inappropriate. And that people use wikipedia for many things and I could have affected them negatively with my childish joke and I will not do it again. And I would like to say that the rephrasing I suggested on the article "Fart (word)" and "Morning wood" were what I believe to be easier to understand, make more sense and allows the reader to have a less advanced vocabulary to be able to fully understand the article.
@Just Chilling Stop engaging yourself in my unblocking process please. My username is no worse than most jokey usernames. If my username is unacceptable and is the reason for my blocking than I would like to report you for abusing your adminship as your username is no worse than mine.
- If it is the case that there are other usernames also suggesting illegal activities then perhaps we should look at our username policy? Just Chilling (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Just Chilling In fact I have looked at the username policy before and can therefore state that there is nothing wrong/offensive about my username. If you disagree please point it out to me.
IEatpeople4Fun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am making a third unblock request as I am very eager to make a article about a anime series "Hetalia: World Series" and possibly contribute to the article "Collin Burns" and I also would like to edit the articles "Morning wood" and "Fart (word)". Thanks.
Decline reason:
As for the argument that "Anyone can edit", that has many unspoken conditions attached - and the "anyone" really means "anyone with sufficient competence, who acts as a net positive for the encyclopedia, and who does not cause disruption" (among other things).
Also, I strongly suggest you do not make any more unblock requests before at least six months, as you are increasingly likely to have your ability to edit this talk page revoked too (for your own good as much as anything). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 8 June 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.
I won't review this request as I have already done so, but given that it does not address any of the concerns raised above, and only emphasises my concern that you are not mature enough to edit this encyclopaedia, I think it almost certain that it will be declined, and that you run the risk of having your ability to edit this page revoked. I strongly suggest you withdraw it and reconsider all the advice given above (including WP:Standard offer) if you wish to be allowed to edit at some point in the future. Optimist on the run (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Optimist on the run You can't block me for being immature. The slogan of wikipedia is "Anyone can edit" not "Only mature people with no sense of humor can edit". And as I have stated in the request for unblock I am enthusiastic about morning wood and farts and I would like to improve upon their articles so I don't see any valid reason to remain blocked.
IEatpeople4Fun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My entire experience on wikipedia with administrators has been very negative. Administrators are supposed to make the environment a positive place for everyone. But all they have done for me is say my jokes aren't funny in a passive aggressive way and call me immature because I think boners and farts are funny. Personally if I was an admin I would try to use positive reinforcement and be nice to other users and try to avoid making them feel bad for who they are (which is what most admins have done to me.). The slogan of wikipedia is "anyone can edit" but honestly you should change it to "only people who don't have half-decent sense of humor can edit" because that is the vibe that I have gotten from these administrators. Please notice that i'm not trying to insult any admins and say that they have no sense of humor, sorry if you think that I am. Honestly I do not fully understand why I am still banned from a professional standpoint. And I know that this will be declined and that in the declining reason section the admin will passive aggressively call me unintelligent. But personally I think everyone should have a second chance and there are a few articles I would like to edit. I am very eager to make a article about a anime series "Hetalia: World Series" and possibly contribute to the article "Collin Burns" and I also would like to edit the articles "Morning wood" and "Fart (word)".
Decline reason:
As above, I would suggest taking the standard offer in 6 months. I have disabled your talkpage for the time being. SQLQuery me! 18:04, 8 June 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.
.
IEatpeople4Fun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20272 was submitted on Jan 09, 2018 04:56:35. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
IEatpeople4Fun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20526 was submitted on Feb 04, 2018 06:00:54. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
IEatpeople4Fun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20534 was submitted on Feb 04, 2018 17:47:18. This review is now closed.