User talk:Shane Cyrus
Shane Cyrus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked several years ago for sockpuppetry. However, this was caused by lack of knowledge about Wikipedia policy. Subsequently I made an unblock request and it was turned down with the offer that if I do not behave disruptively and violate policy for a year I will be unblocked. I have done just that and read up on Wiki policy. If it is possible could I be given an unblock now under Wikipedia's own policy of good faith?
Accept reason:
OK, I understand what you said, and I see no reason not to give you another chance. Normally I would wait for the blocking administrator to have a chance to comment, but he or she has been doing very little editing recently, having made only one edit in the last 19 days, so there could be a long wait, and also it is highly likely that after a few months short of two years he or she may not have much opinion on it anyway, so I have decided to go ahead and unblock your account. If Risker disagrees, I hope he or she will accept my apologies and let me know the reason for disagreeing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I am normally well disposed towards unblock requests from editors who come back after several years and say that they will not do the same things again, and I am certainly willing to consider unblocking you. However, there are a couple of things that give me pause. Firstly, you say that sockpuppetry was "caused by lack of knowledge about Wikipedia policy", but nobody needs to know about a policy in order to realise that pretending to be several people in order to give a misleading impression of support for a point of view is dishonest. Secondly, years ago, when requesting to be unblocked, you said (more than once) that you would not continue to use sockpuppets, but you did. Can yo comment on those two facts? Also, maybe Risker, the blocking administrator, would like to comment, even though the block was a long time ago, so Risker may well have no memory of it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: When I made my Wiki account, I found it a great website. The other three accounts were made for family members. The immature act that I committed due to lack of policy knowledge was to ask them to support a discussion. It is obviously biased and I was unaware that Wikipedia doesn't support this kind of behaviour. I have evidently taken a long break and made myself aware enough to not repeat this behaviour. If Risker wants to ask any more questions I will surely answer them. I just think I shouldn't be indefinitely blocked and never ever be given a chance again.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Miley Cyrus
Hello:
The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Miley Cyrus has been completed.
Before the article can be considered for FA status all of the URLs will need to be archived (where allowed). The citation formats need to be the same as well. I also noticed that some of the citations are missing details like the publisher.
Good luck with your FA nomination.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is allowed, hence why I removed it. Thanks for your very helpful and useful input. — Calvin999 10:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of GetItRight
The article GetItRight you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:GetItRight for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)