User talk:Ludamad

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).

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

Request reason:

Indefinite bans are a bit of BS. I was 15. I'm 23 now.

Decline reason:

So suggest to us a reason you should be unblocked; hoax articles, after all, a a great big bit of BS, and that's pretty much all you did before you were blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:56, 3 June 2015 (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.

I was 15 @_@. Are you anything like you were when you were 15? But OK, as a formality...

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

OK, sure, I didn't word that the best. If I did want to make more hoax articles, I'd be wasting my time opening this account :-). I should be unblocked because I've matured in the 8 years since and could just as easily make a new account, but want to keep my internet name. I care about this internet name, and wouldn't want to vandalize Wikipedia with it anyway. I have a lot of input now into articles in computer science and linguistics, and regularly do cleanup anonymously. Recently, I saw a wording improvement to be made on a semi-protected article, and wanted to go through the steps necessary to fix semi-protected articles (other articles I don't really need an account).

Accept reason:

While technically editing without an account is considered block evasion, I agree that we can give you a second chance. Wording improvements are beneficial, too. Huon (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me three articles you want to improve and briefly explain what you'd do, then I'll see what I can do about an unblock. For example, "I've got hold of a copy of Steve McConnell's Rapid Development - Taming Wild Software Schedules and want to cite it to improve our article on software engineering". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, people (particularly young people) can change enormously in 8 years, and I would be perfectly willing to give you another chance. However, since Ritchie333 has asked you to give an indication what editing you may do if you are unblocked, perhaps you can do so, to confirm that you really are likely to make constructive contributions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just stating I make wording adjustments / fix grammar errors. I don't have plans to make commitments to improve Wikipedia articles in that way. I meant 'I have a lot of input' as 'I believe I am knowledgeable enough (and mindful enough) to work with such articles, not necessarily in-depth'. I'm mostly asking for an unblock based on what I won't do. Again, if I wanted to make non-constructive edits, I'd just be doing that right now instead of typing here. For what it's worth, I am an active programmer https://github.com/ludamad/ "ludamad" (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all.