If you are going to revert a image, please state a valid reason in the comment, not "Leave at it is." I asked you why you reverted the newer version in your commons talk page, and you replied with "Please stop adding lines into the images. The lines aren't even accurate, and is original research." The lines in the image are country borders from the NASA gallery version, and I don't see how it could be OR. You seem to have disregarded me and reverted back anyways with what I think might be a sockpuppet of yours. Instead of going back and reverting the image again, I have came here to tell you why so we can both avoid a 3RR. Also, is the User:kwlam259 a sockpuppet of yours? You seemed to have switched accounts in order to revert me, which also used the same edit summaries. According to [1], the edits from the two accounts seems to come in alternate intervals. Please take you time to read this prior to rashly reverting again. Thanks, - HurricaneSpin(Talk)02:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have never, and will never sockpuppet.
It is for this reasons:
1. I have never thought about Sockpuppeting when i first signed up to Wikipedia.
2. I learned in the policies that it is against the law of Wikipedia.
3. It is a bad, uncivilized thing to do.
4. I would like to treasure my one and only account, and let other users be sure that this is my only account.
What exactly is this in reference to? I don't see any image reversions from Earth100's account with a "Leave at it is" edit summary--either here or on the Commons. Never mind; I found it. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A message from Earth100 to be read by: User:Hurricanehink, the person behind the account:UserEarth101, and admins.
That account was not made by me, and at that time, I was blocked, and I was also account creation blocked. Given that I have never thought of sockpuppeting, knowingly that it is forbidden, and the account creation was blocked, I would like my user page to return to it's original look.
And besides that can someone remove the template that on User:Earth101 userpage that says This account is a sock puppet of Earth100 and has been blocked indefinitely.
It is extremely annoying, especially for something I have never, never done.
And I would like to continue my mentorship.
And for anyone who replies, please do not say that I would like to return to my mentorship only to get unblocked, as my only intention is to be a good user, and continue the mentorship.
Besides, this current block was done because I have only said something like: I can stand this mentorship!!!, and something like: Can I cancel this mentorship??
Now, look at the above statements. All I did was to ask and say something, and for that, should a user get blocked for like...indefinitely??!!!
And I never said that I want to cancel. It took confirmation for me to get unblocked and to enter the mentorship but should it take something without confirmation to get blocked?...indefinitely??!
Points for Admins to double think:
Should a user get indefinitely blocked for not doing anything wrong, or action without confirmation??!
I have know the rules and never thought of even doing sockpuppeting.
And for that, should I even be blocked and be accused of sockpuppeting?
Should I get my talk page blocked indefinitely for only being a bit bold on expressing my views and freedom of speech?
Overall, my whole time on Wikipedia was for only 1 reason, not for vandalizing, doing OR (I did it because I didn't know it was bad) or for sockpuppeting, and troubling other users, but for contributing and building a better Wikipedia. That was my only intention.
Overall, as I always say, research before action.
Bbb23 blanked my page without good "research before action", without my permission, and to me, it is a bit rude, and i would consider it pure 100% Vandalism. Can a top admin do this??!
Finally for anyone who wishes to kindly reply this message, please reply it with the understanding of the above statements. Thank you.--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)11:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you can do the mentorship while blocked. You just have to do it in sections on this talk page rather than on a subpage. Given that you're still weeks if not months away from editing mainspace directly, there's no need to be unblocked in order to continue the mentorship. I've removed the sock tag from User:Earth101, and left an explanatory note on that account's talk page. I've also restored your user page. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked for several reasons including the addition of Original Research, Edit warring over pictures with Meow, Attacking other people and cultures and finally for not participating in your Mentorship programme. It is also worth noting that as things stand you do not have a mentor since Hurricanehink has decided to quit because you were taking too long over exercises etc. (see above).Jason Rees (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jason, that was history. It happened a long time ago and I didn't even got blocked weeks later. I was blocked because the admins thought I would like to cancel my adoption.--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)13:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know im not Hink but i can say he has cancelled your adoption, because he posted on this page last week - i have bolded his comment so that it stands out.Jason Rees (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he clearly said, "I'd like to end my duties as a mentor." I don't understand how he could make it any clearer that he doesn't want to be your mentor, Earth100. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, Earth100, with no mentor, you're stuck. I can post a request on the Adopter page saying we're looking for a mentor, but no promises on when someone will decide to take up the cause. In fact, there's not even a guarantee that someone will ever do so; I know that a number of our mentors known for their work with difficult mentees (i.e., those being forced into adoption, rather than doing so voluntarily) are completely busy, either on or off wiki. If you wish me to make such a request, I will do so, and then you'll just have to wait. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose looking for a new mentor. I might consider it after six months have elapsed and Earth100 making a more convincing case that there's some basis for us believing that he would take a mentorship more seriously, but not now. It's hard to imagine anyone more patient than Hink, so getting a new mentor would be a waste of the new mentor's time and our time. The problem here is not with the mentor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I am not an admin and I shouldn't be reading/commenting right now, but Earth, what is it that makes you want to edit Wikipedia so much? You have been extremely persistent about getting unblocked yet you stated that you are busy and cannot edit Wikipedia. - HurricaneSpin(Talk)01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Hurricane Spin, in accordance of what you typed, it clearly means that you did not read / understand my message.
I might be busy, but that dosen't mean I can't spend a minute or two contributing wikipedia)
For civil discussions regarding the above topic, please comment above this line:
Sorry Earth, but the above is all true. You had little to no interest in mentoring, from the beginning when you were looking for anyone else to mentor you, to the end when you asked if you could get out of it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hink. You really don't wanna be mentored. You have no patience and just want to edit. When mentored, you played around a commons and never did your assignments. This is not the admin's fault, it is your fault. You were the one who edit warred with Meow and moving images all around and added false stuff to articles, not the admins. I'm sorry to say this Earth, but you have nobody to blame but yourself. YEPacificHurricane02:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you two say something and draw to a conclusion when you are not me.I said, that I want to be mentored and how can you ridiculously say that!! Besides, the desion for mentoring is in my hands. Not anyone else like Yellow Evan!--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)05:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making personal attacks against me. Why should you be mentored again if the last time, you messed around on commons, and did not take it seriously, and asked to cancel the adaption and was very selective with your mentor selection? You even broke your mentorship agreement. YEPacificHurricane05:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was history! I am talking about right now, and for good, WHY am I not being adopted when I didn't say I wanna cancel! All the things you said was completely not true about me. And later, there's a big chance the Admins will listen to you, not me.
Besides, I was using whatever time I have to make a good contribution!
If everybody thinks that I'm a ol' bad user, why why why don't I get a chance like a week or two to be free and contribute and to show everybody I am okay!--✯Earth100✯(talk✉) 05:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)05:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had a chance but you blew it. What has really changed since the last time your were mentored? You are not being mentored because Hink resigned to be your mentor after it was clear you did not want to be mentored. I am not an admin, but I doubt there will listen to you. YEPacificHurricane05:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The odds of the latter happening is not much bigger than a coin landing on its side, I guess there is a slight chance that former may happen, but I am not 100% convinced it's the best option at this time for reasons I've already gone into. YEPacificHurricane06:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you change your heading before you get your talk page access removed. This is highly inappropriate: "For Hink, Yellow Evan, Hurricanespin, and Inks, and for a bit of non-civil action, please comment below this line." Hink, YE, Hurricanespin, and myself have all been civil in this discussion. You're blocked, and you have to wait 6 months to ask to be unblocked and apply for another mentorship. I suggest you just take a step back from Wikipedia until then so that you don't dig yourself a bigger hole. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will not tolerate a block that was not necessary. I will not wait. I have already stepped away from Wikipedia for more than half a year, and I will not waste anymore time to try to contribute wikipedia. --✯Earth100✯(talk✉)11:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warning. Earth, I'd like to leave you access to your talk page so that in perhaps six months you can convince us that we should try again - if you're so inclined. But you're making it hard. If you continue these abusive comments, I will revoke your talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 is the blocking admin here, so I'm not going to override his opinions on the options for you seeking a new mentor. At this point, you have exactly 3 options:
Follow the provisions of WP:OFFER: leave Wikipedia for at least 6 months, and then come back and ask for an unblock, which would likely only be granted under the same terms as before (mandatory, highly restrictive mentorship).
Post a new unblock request, and see if a different admin feels differently. Note that I personally believe you only get one more shot at this approach--you don't get to just keep making unblock requests, until you get the result you want. Should this unblock request fail, you'll have to go for one of the other options.
Request an unblock at WP:BASC. This appeal would go to the Arbitration Committee, which is a separate governance body elected yearly, which, among other things, is a "court of last resort". They would rule on your unblock request privately. Note that if you do go to BASC, and they decline, there is nowhere else to go; in fact, even an WP:OFFER request would have to go to the whole community--no individual admin could then ever unblock you (at least, that's my opinion of how BASC requests should be handled).
So, you choose. Meanwhile, I don't think that anyone else's commentary here is helpful. I say this without any compulsion, but I think that there's just not much y'all can say here that will help Earth100. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New section
Just asking, please.
I've got an idea! Why not all of you admins treat me as a new user?
Like, unblocking me, and I'll do my best on Wikipedia.
Watch me for about a week, a think if I should be reblocked or whatever.
Why? Because, well, you see you may have not seen me finnish the mentorhsip, but given that I may not be readopted, I just want a simple, 1 week take off to be free.
Note: This is only to show that I could be okay without a mentor, and I'll make sure my edits will be clean, and perfect. You are free to reblock me if you aren't satisfied, or think i'm not doing good enough.
--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)12:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's tough not to respond sarcastically to this request as it's the same refrain you've been spouting for quite some time. If you want to choose Option #2 above and make an unblock request, go ahead. I think it's a waste of time, but I'm not going to stop you. But if you continue to post these sorts of comments, I will end this discussion by revoking access to your talk page. You continue to waste our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to talk, and for that should my talk page be blocked?For now, I hope another admin will respond my question above. I need more responses. --✯Earth100✯(talk✉)13:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to formulate an actual unblock request. Otherwise, it's unlikely that another admin will respond. A formal request automatically places you in a category that all admins can see if they wish to.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Add the following to the end of this discussion: {{unblock|reason = Write your reason here. ~~~~}}. Remove the "tlx", and add your reason. You may wish to review guide to appealing blocks first. You should also review all of the previous discussions we've had that explain in detail why you've been blocked. You should finally note that if your block is declined, I will be removing your talk page access, and then you will have to send all further appeals to WP:BASC. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, why if my request is declined i'll get my talk page blocked?(Any reply will likely be done on June 7. Please, I just want to ask and discuss.)--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)14:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing more to discuss, Earth100. Bbb23 and I both believe you're more harm to the encyclopedia than benefit, and even this discussion here is detrimental, because so many users waste so much time on it. Make your unblock request. There's no need for you to have talk page access for any other reason. No more responses here from me. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may have a bad history, but I've learned. I can prove it, than I'm more unique than other users. I have learned the lesson well especially the policies. The problem is that I don't get any chance to prove it. Please, I already have nothing left in wikipedia, and I just want my own talk page to be left as it is right now. I'll make the unblock request when I have enough time.
Besides, this is my talk page. Only if I did anything that violates the policies should this talk page be blocked from me.--✯Earth100✯(talk✉) 00:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)00:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried sick the block request will decline, as I have never never made a successful unblock request. The thing is that I need to prove, show that I'm beneficial. Bye for now, I've got to go to work.--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)00:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not your talk page. It is a page hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation which they have allowed the community to give a purpose to; the community has decided that the purpose of talk pages is primarily to communicate with a specific user regarding Wikipedia editing. Since you cannot edit WIkipedia, you may use this page for one and only one purpose: to request an unblock. The next edit you make to this page that is not an unblock request will result in me removing your talk page access, and you'll be back to needing to ask WP:BASC. Stop wasting our time. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of articles I hope to contribute significantly if I am unblocked
Cleisostoma simondii-Mission: To expand, improve, source, and replace the images with higher quality images (it flowers in October here in Hong Kong)
Choy sum-Mission: To Expand, improve, source the article, and add a few images.
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth100, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
No, I haven't been editing Wikipedia for weeks(I mean my talk page). I have no intention of sockpuppeting. Please help me verify if User:Earth102 is not my account. I guarantee the checkuser results will shown I am innocent.--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)00:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can reply here to the sockpuppetry accusation without risking your talk page access.I'll go take a look into it now. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on the SPI that I don't think this is you. While I do think you've had difficulty learning WP policies, I don't think you're stupid, and you would have to be extremely stupid to create such an obvious sock. Thus, I think it's that same impersonator as before. A Checkuser will run a check, which will help provide some info. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page access removed
I believe that I was extremely clear above: no edits to this page that are not unblock requests. You again chose to flout that requirement by posting a request for someone to proxy edit for you. As such, I've removed your talk page access. If you wish to be unblocked, submit a request to WP:UTRS. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Due to repeated and persistent poor editing behaviours in this user's past history, I have decided not to unblock at this time, but I have offered this user the "2nd chance" process (see below) as an option, which he has accepted. Talk page editing privileges will be restored to allow this user to follow the process, and I will take responsibility for this block as the supervising administrator, User:Qwyrxian, has informed me that they are no longer editing Wikipedia. Tristessa(talk)13:00, 27 May 2014 (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.
Second chance process
This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:
Click the Edit tab at the top of that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.
Hello Earth! Just a friendly note to ask how you're getting on with the Second Chance process, and whether you need any help -- since I processed your request, you can edit this talk page, so I'll be keeping an eye on your progress here and you can reply. Have you chosen an article to work on yet? --Tristessa(talk)17:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Danaus genutia
Hi Earth100,
I love all your photos. But the 'monarch' photo you took at Sai Kung is actually a Danaus genutia, which closely resembles the Monarch butterfly.
Hello everyone, as far as you have known, I've been inactive because I was busy and I feel I should give up.
Just so you know, the only reason why I want to be unblocked, is to add/replace images in wikipedia. Overall, contributing to a better wikipedia. I want to have a fresh new start, and be treated as a experienced new-comer. Right now, I find it extremely unnecessary to be blocked, and I won't care how long it will take, but if this goes on, I'll do something nobody would know when and where. It doesn't matter how long, because time will give me anything.
Basically, I am sick of wikipedia blocking people who aren't even logically bad, uncivil, etc.--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)11:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Earth100, Tristessa de St Ange "took control" of your block back in May of last year. Tristessa left instructions (above) on what you should do if you wanted to be unblocked. Unfortunately, Tristessa hasn't contributed to the English wikipedia since October 2014, so I don't know where they are. I'm not familiar with the second chance template. Nor am I necessarily comfortable in making this the test just because Tristessa wanted to do that. One thing you can do is complete the template anyway, and I can then see whether someone can pitch in on the issue. The only administrator besides me who is somewhat familiar with your case (based on your block log) and still around is Rschen7754. He may want to weigh in on this. You could also wait to see what he says before completing the template. That's up to you. No promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Earth100: As one of the main editors involved in your case, the block seems to have done you some good in maturing, however, I think you need to demonstrate how you would illustrate an article before the block on your account is reversed. By pure coincidence we have the History of tropical cyclone naming article that could do with some relevant images adding, so heres the deal. If you can come up with some decent images (ie: not too many/not too few) and justify them with a brief caption that helps us understand your thought process we can consider your unblocking you, but you will not be treated as a newcomer since you made some pretty offensive remarks and edit warred before you were blocked.Jason Rees (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Jason can recommend unblocking you but cannot unblock you himself or make any promises in that regard.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If unblocked, you'll only find me online once or twice a week, usually just to add images, it's the only thing I'm interested in. For example, I've seen pictures of plant photos that are wrongly placed.
No just read through the article and suggest some images for it on here and let us into your thought process on why you would place them in the article. For example the Clement Wragge Picture is relevant because he is often credited with having the idea for naming tropical cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief that telling a friend to edit for you is acceptable within Wikipedia policy demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of policy and is enough that I would be against unblocking you at this time. There is effectively no difference between your editing an article as an IP, or using another named account, and your asking someone else to do the edit for you. Both are either block evasion or sock puppetry, depending on your perspective, although some would call it editing by proxy. A block applies to you as an individual, not you as an account name.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actions like this and statements like "[I]f this goes on, I'll do something nobody would know when and where. It doesn't matter how long, because time will give me anything." (which Earth100 made above in creating this section) seem to indicate that he has not learned his lesson. I am not against giving a second chance (or whatever number chance we are up to at this point), but what I don't want to see happen is Earth100 come back, continue being disruptive, and we end up wasting hours of users' and administrators' time like we have in the past trying to give him additional chances. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am utterly disappointed by how you perceived that action as myself, and that it was negative. The reason why I wanted to stay on wikipedia is that I see that wikipedia is in need of someone with good experiences in telling the real from the fake. I find it interesting, that many people, can actually ignore those article flaws. I thought wikipedia is about being flawless, allowing no corruption of information. Fact: I know that from 2 years ago, that you're not allowed to edit wikipedia even if you told a friend to do it.
Fine, you can block someone who just simply wants to prove what he is capable of, but seriously, think about it.
You have no idea, about how much I've read the articles, referring to wikipedia's laws.
Disruptive? So, basically, being honest, justified, and contributing is disruptive?
That friend edit I said above fundamentally proves Ink's behavioral reaction towards it is negative.
You act as if you want to see me go rather than see me do my full good potential.
You seem to be more focused on blocking people that has learned a hard lesson rather than maintaining the articles themselves.
None of you, accept JasonRees, has even asked, or mentioned about telling me to do an example right here on the talk page, of what I can do, certainly indicating you have no interest in this user's contributions, and the fact that you just want him to go. Perhaps it takes someone who has been in wikipedia long enough, like Jason, to see the whole full picture.
Look at Bbb23, even he focuses on the laws of wikipedia, and he doesn't mention about seeing me go.
That is justified, since it is the law of wikipedia. Inks, you really need to re-think.-✯Earth100✯(talk✉)22:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I use the "Second chance process" (As seen above) now? Since I'm blocked, I would like to use my talk page to it's full potential. Otherwise, I would be indeed wasting your time as you have said.--✯Earth100✯(talk✉)22:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Im not going to respond to any of the points but what i will say is that you need to earn our trust before you start editing again. As a result i proposed a way for you too demonstrate this by providing some thoughts what images to use on the history of tropical cyclone naming since you have an interest in TC's and pictures . If you play ball and show us how you have changed then i maybe able to recommend to Admins that you be unblocked but i need to see something substantial that convinces me that you have matured enough to edit Wiki. However, your time and my patience is running out as while you may have matured a little bit, I am starting to see things that make me wonder if you should be unblocked at this time or wait for several more months.Jason Rees (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a watchlist that will inform me when things happen on your page, but bear in mind i only want to see about 7/8 relevant images for it not a whole gallery.Jason Rees (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not just want to see you go. When I was first informed that you had returned, I came here to sit back and observe; I purposefully did not say anything, because I wanted to see what played out. But then red flags kept popping up, and now you have told us that you knew it was wrong to have your friend edit for you, yet you did it anyway. I would love for you to be unblocked and become a productive and active user here; however, you have made numerous empty promises before, and I want to see proof of significant, concrete changes to your attitude and approach to being here before I endorse allowing you to be unblocked, because if you have not changed, unblocking you will just end up wasting everybody's time. You were offered an opportunity to be mentored before, and you completely blew it off. If you are serious about returning, I hope you take Jason's offer seriously and do not repeat the mistakes you made back in 2013. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, I just don't want to be mentored, I want to be independent. Besides, I'm not going to be active enough for someone to mentor me. The mentoring may feel it's a waste of time, waiting for me to get online. I can assure you that I won't waste your time this time.Concrete changes is exactly what I'm talking about. --✯Earth100✯(talk✉)04:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to do more than just suggesting some pictures to that article, I would like to present what I want to do with some articles of my interest. Of course, I'll do that when I'm done with Jason's request first.
What else, other than adding pictures would you like to do with articles? Do you foresee making substantive changes other than picture-related changes if you were to be unblocked? Inks.LWC (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but my only interest is mainly pictures. I'll get really good at it. Of course, I'm not going to do just 100% image-only contributions...Oh btw, why does Iphonehurricane keeps annoying me? -.- --✯Earth100✯(talk✉)22:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not being very clear on what you actually want to do if unblocked. At first you said that the only thing you are interested in was adding pictures. Now it seems like you want to do more than just add pictures. Considering all the issues you had before with understanding various policies, I would be very hesitant with unblocking you without some sort of mentor program in place. So if you're not going to do 100% image contributions, can you approximate what percentage would be image contributions? Inks.LWC (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, if you want me to be honest, I usually do the image contributions when I see an opportunity.Didn't I stated clearly, any image-related stuff? Adding, fixing, replacing? I see a lot of articles that need image replacements with better ones. By better, I mean high definition, and good quality photos. It's hard to say, but I'm sure you'll agree if I give you an example.
The problem is that you have, in the past, shown to have either a severe misunderstanding about or blatant disregard for policies and guidelines (you admit that you knew it was wrong to have your friend edit for you, yet you did it anyway). If you want to do things other than just adding images, giving you full reign to edit whatever you want without supervision from a more experienced Wikipedia user is a very bad idea, in my opinion. If you are serious about coming back, work on the project that Jason gave you; however, if you're going to give the same excuses you did when you were being mentored (e.g., that you are too busy, that you don't want to work on it right now, that you want to be fully independent, etc.), then that's not going to fly. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It won't happen this time, I swear. Btw, if you're afraid of me doing bad, or evil deeds that defy the wikipedian law, just let me be independent for a while, and ask yourself. Does he really need to be mentored? --✯Earth100✯(talk✉)22:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not how it works. You can't go from being indefinitely blocked due to being a disruptive editor to unblocked with full independence in order to prove yourself. You need to show you've changed before you are given free reign. The second chance process proposed above is not one where you have free reign; you have to make significant changes to an article needing improvement to go through the second chance process. The changes to the article you pick need to be "substantial". If you aren't willing to try to do that, you aren't going to be unblocked; it seems as if you are ignoring the terms of the second chance offer. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I am going to be mentored, I'll consider leaving wikipedia, since I already don't have enough time for that. I want to use my own time when I want it. Yup, being mentored, to me, it's like being blocked indefinitely in wikipedia. --✯Earth100✯(talk✉)22:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you have said countless times that you either were going to, or have, changed; however, each time, there was little (or no) evidence of change. You do not necessarily have to go through a full mentorship program, but in order to be unblocked, you won't be given 100% independence without proving yourself first. It's not me saying that; it's the admin who made the second chance offer. I would also note that mentorship is not the same as an indefinite block; one is indefinite; the other is not. Quite honestly, my opinion is that you are approaching this with a a poor attitude, and the more you talk here, the more you are convincing me that you being unblocked would be a net positive to Wikipedia. My advice would be: (1) stop arguing on your talk page to persuade people that you have chanced; and (2) pick an article to improve and start improving it pursuant to the instructions left in the second chance offer section. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
