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).
OK, it's now been over six months. Per Standard Offer, I wish to be unblocked as I have done stupid things on Wikipedia. I hope to become a constructive editor and I want a second chance please. Thanks for reading my appeal, and I apologize for my actions towards the encyclopedia. Ronald McDonald is back (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
This unblock request 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:
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.
Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion 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.
If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2016 (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.
Paper 1: Guided literary analysis (SL: 1 hour 30 minutes)/Literary commentary (HL: 2 hours) (20 marks weighing 20% of the course) - Candidates write a commentary on one of the two unseen passages - a prose and a poetry. SL candidates must respond to the two guiding questions given in the question paper - one on understanding and interpretation and another on style. HL candidates are assessed for their exploration of the various literary aspects and how their effects are achieved. SL students are not required to have a persuasive commentary or a personal response, rather only a guided commentary is required. SL students also only have 1h30m to complete their analysis as they are given two guiding questions. [1]
Paper 2: Essay (25 marks weighing 25% of the course, 1 hour and 30 minutes for SL, 2 hours for HL) - Candidates write a comparative essay based on one of the three essay questions given for the literary genre studied in part 3 of the course. Responses must be based on at least two works from this part, but reference can be made from one of the works studied in part 2 as well. Candidates will not have access to the works studied. The genres are poetry, drama, novels, short stories and non-fiction prose. [2]
Written assignment (25 marks weighing 25% of the course) - Candidates submit a 1200 to 1500-word analytical literary essay on a topic generated by the candidate, based on a work studied in part 1. This is done in 4 stages - the interactive oral (journal writing for self-taught candidates), the reflective statement, topic development and the production of the essay. The journal writing (for self-taught candidates) and reflective statement, of 300-400 words, is also submitted for assessment.
Paper 1 accounts for 20% of the course, Paper 2 and the written assignment account for 25% each, hence external assessment gives 70% of the grade. [3]
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).
OK, I have completed the edits. Please unblock my account. I have demonstrated my willingness to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. My edits are substantial and have added references and relevant info. Ronald McDonald is back (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your edits are here. I mean this politely, that's a long way from a substantial edit. That paragraph used to be 11 words and is now 26 words. You added a single reference to a primary source (i.e. not an ideal citation). It's a good start but not sufficient. Additionally, you didn't follow the instructions, and thereby committed a copyright violation. Now, I don't want you to get discouraged. I'm not saying 'no', I'm saying 'not yet'. You are very welcome to try again and nobody will hold this particular unblock request against you. Finally, my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was out of town on work so this took much longer than you had the right to expect. Yamla (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2016 (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.
Yamla, I believe you are being pinged. I'm not sure about the conditions you met, but a claim is made of having met those conditions. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
