User talk:132Lemons132: Difference between revisions

Line 67: Line 67:

::The same is fine. Though go ahead and add line breaks so it’s easier for us to read. — [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 21:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

:::{{CUnote}} no sign of recent block evasion; just the one account we already know about and have blocked. — [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 21:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

== Unban Appeal ==

{{unblock|1= Hello, Before I start I want to say that I will be completely honest in this whole appeal. It’s been 6 months, so I’d like to explain my situation in full.

In 2024, November-ish, an admin messaged me about an edit I made and he asked me if I was being monetized. I replied no, but then was put in a sockpuppetry investigation. I made an edit on a Wikipedia page on a show I liked and I had good information about. “After I draftified this article, a newbie 132Lemons132 created a new article on the same topic Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum with the same content.” is what the admin said. One thing I remember, while I was making the edit I made an empty page by accident, and maybe that caused the issue.

So, I was blocked, and I made many unban appeals not really giving good reasons because I was confused and just asking “why am I blocked? I mean all I did was make a big edit on a show I liked.” In ALL honesty, I wasn’t linked to any of those accounts nor paid to edit that page nor did I use sockpuppet accounts on purpose.

“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sunuraju/Archive ” is the investigation (note that my intention isn’t to criticize the admins). In that page they talk about how I was linked or a sock of one of the other accounts. Again, I’m not linked or know any of those accounts; this is my main account. What I should have done is explain the situation, ask for forgiveness, and say I won’t do it again; I’m sorry I didn’t. In my appeal, I said the only alt I made was ‘idontknowlolol’. I didn’t bring this up initially because it was created at least 2 years before my block, and the investigation had no correlation to it. This alt wasn’t for sockpuppetry; I think it made 1 or 2 edits because I was on a new device.

It got blocked later, but I didn’t intend to sockpuppet—I simply edited a show I liked and didn’t have access to my Lemons account then. Then I got the standard offer in December, but since I was blocked in November I thought I could appeal in April. I messed up the dates; I thought my 6 months started during the investigation. That’s my mistake. Sorry about that too; I spent hours writing that appeal and took it seriously.

Now, in the standard offer it said to do some edits on other Wikimedia projects. “https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/132Lemons132 ” I know it isn’t much, but I made some edits a few months ago. I looked into the other media and didn’t find it that interesting. I spent at least 2 hours looking for things to edit, and I didn’t want to edit for the sake of it. I only did it where needed and researched it. I apologize if it isn’t enough.

To summarise, I was naive/unprofessional with my responses because I was confused about being blocked and admitted having the alt ‘idontknowlolol’. I want to sincerely apologise for everything. I understand how my actions may have looked from an administrator’s perspective, and I’m truly sorry for the trouble. I should have explained things properly instead of repeatedly appealing without understanding. I’ve learned from this and want a genuine chance to edit constructively and be part of the community again. I feel that I’ve changed a lot in the last 10–11 months. I’ve been honest and truthful in this message, though I may have been redundant, but I wanted to explain everything clearly.

I feel like I’ve tried my best. If still unsure, I’d be willing to start with limited editing rights or a probationary period and demonstrate I can contribute constructively before full access is restored. Thank you for reading this appeal. I just want a fair chance to be part of the community again, and I hope anyone I may have been unprofessional to can forgive me. [[User:132Lemons132|132Lemons132]] ([[User talk:132Lemons132#top|talk]]) 09:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)}} [[User:132Lemons132|132Lemons132]] ([[User talk:132Lemons132#top|talk]]) 09:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t want to sound rude or anything, but the reason why I and others keep removing your changes is because it doesn’t sound appropriate for Wikipedia, even if you think it is better. First of all, from a writing perspective, it doesn’t sound like the formal tone of an encyclopedia or textbook. Secondly, it contains too much information. These Wikipedia pages are for people who are not fans of Miraculous and want to know more about the show. They don’t need to know how Cat Noir felt about Cataclysming Monarch, just the fact that he scarred him, because that’s the only thing important for the plot. Lastly, even though the plot contains substantial descriptions about the characters, just like any well-written Wikipedia plot summary, there is no need to call it “Plot and Characters”. That’s just how Wikipedia standards work. I hope you understand. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i will change it back to how it was but I would only argue to keep the “Story” Heading. Anyways, I have changed back to the edit you made a couple of days ago thank you I will leave this Miraculous Ladybug article to you…Keep it coming. Goodbye! 132Lemons132 (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

chilll out 132Lemons132 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there was draft of Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum by —Sunuraju (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 132Lemons132. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia’s mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a “black hat” practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:132Lemons132. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=132Lemons132|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i dont want money i just want to edit dude. – im not being compensated kay? 132Lemons132 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just like the drama, I am not being compensated or anything! 132Lemons132 (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ridiculous 132Lemons132 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2024 (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).

132Lemons132 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I Dont feel like my block is correct, i deny everything said about me. Few days ago i made a big edit about a tv serial and since then ive been getting messages on messages about me being a ‘sock’? and being compensated and so on. i apologize if i have done anything wrong, ive also been told this is some fake account or something. this is my only account of 2 years! please forgive me! regards. also sorry for making many unblocks requests. 132Lemons132 (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

132Lemons132 (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical data is not particularly helpful in this case. —Yamla (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can i request for my case to be re opened? 132Lemons132 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

132Lemons132 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 18:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

132Lemons132 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

132Lemons132 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I was blocked for alleged sockpuppetry. I did not intend to violate any rules and now fully understand Wikipedia’s policies. I assure you that I will not engage in disruptive behavior and will focus on constructive contributions. Please reconsider my block. 132Lemons132 (talk) 3:19 am, 22 November 2024, Friday (27 days ago) (UTC−9)

Decline reason:

is declined. Confirmed sock, Idontknowlollol, tagged and blocked. —Yamla (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is closed. I gave the WP:SO. They say this is their main account. — asilvering (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your ability to edit this talk page, in response UTRS appeal #107138, so that you can post an unblock request here. JBW (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was my appeal bad or should I just put the same one here? 132Lemons132 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same is fine. Though go ahead and add line breaks so it’s easier for us to read. — asilvering (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: no sign of recent block evasion; just the one account we already know about and have blocked. — asilvering (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

132Lemons132 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, Before I start I want to say that I will be completely honest in this whole appeal. It’s been 6 months, so I’d like to explain my situation in full.

I feel like I’ve tried my best. If still unsure, I’d be willing to start with limited editing rights or a probationary period and demonstrate I can contribute constructively before full access is restored. Thank you for reading this appeal. I just want a fair chance to be part of the community again, and I hope anyone I may have been unprofessional to can forgive me. 132Lemons132 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing “blocking administrator” with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, Before I start I want to say that I will be completely honest in this whole appeal. It’s been 6 months, so I'd like to explain my situation in full.
In 2024, November-ish, an admin messaged me about an edit I made and he asked me if I was being monetized. I replied no, but then was put in a sockpuppetry investigation. I made an edit on a Wikipedia page on a show I liked and I had good information about. "After I draftified this article, a newbie 132Lemons132 created a new article on the same topic Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum with the same content." is what the admin said. One thing I remember, while I was making the edit I made an empty page by accident, and maybe that caused the issue. 
So, I was blocked, and I made many unban appeals not really giving good reasons because I was confused and just asking "why am I blocked? I mean all I did was make a big edit on a show I liked." In ALL honesty, I wasn't linked to any of those accounts nor paid to edit that page nor did I use sockpuppet accounts on purpose. 
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sunuraju/Archive " is the investigation (note that my intention isn’t to criticize the admins). In that page they talk about how I was linked or a sock of one of the other accounts. Again, I’m not linked or know any of those accounts; this is my main account. What I should have done is explain the situation, ask for forgiveness, and say I won't do it again; I'm sorry I didn’t. In my appeal, I said the only alt I made was 'idontknowlolol'. I didn’t bring this up initially because it was created at least 2 years before my block, and the investigation had no correlation to it. This alt wasn't for sockpuppetry; I think it made 1 or 2 edits because I was on a new device. 
It got blocked later, but I didn’t intend to sockpuppet—I simply edited a show I liked and didn’t have access to my Lemons account then. Then I got the standard offer in December, but since I was blocked in November I thought I could appeal in April. I messed up the dates; I thought my 6 months started during the investigation. That’s my mistake. Sorry about that too; I spent hours writing that appeal and took it seriously. 
Now, in the standard offer it said to do some edits on other Wikimedia projects. "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/132Lemons132 " I know it isn’t much, but I made some edits a few months ago. I looked into the other media and didn’t find it that interesting. I spent at least 2 hours looking for things to edit, and I didn’t want to edit for the sake of it. I only did it where needed and researched it. I apologize if it isn’t enough. 
To summarise, I was naive/unprofessional with my responses because I was confused about being blocked and admitted having the alt 'idontknowlolol'. I want to sincerely apologise for everything. I understand how my actions may have looked from an administrator’s perspective, and I’m truly sorry for the trouble. I should have explained things properly instead of repeatedly appealing without understanding. I’ve learned from this and want a genuine chance to edit constructively and be part of the community again. I feel that I’ve changed a lot in the last 10–11 months. I’ve been honest and truthful in this message, though I may have been redundant, but I wanted to explain everything clearly. 
I feel like I’ve tried my best. If still unsure, I’d be willing to start with limited editing rights or a probationary period and demonstrate I can contribute constructively before full access is restored. Thank you for reading this appeal. I just want a fair chance to be part of the community again, and I hope anyone I may have been unprofessional to can forgive me. [[User:132Lemons132|132Lemons132]] ([[User talk:132Lemons132#top|talk]]) 09:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, Before I start I want to say that I will be completely honest in this whole appeal. It’s been 6 months, so I'd like to explain my situation in full.
In 2024, November-ish, an admin messaged me about an edit I made and he asked me if I was being monetized. I replied no, but then was put in a sockpuppetry investigation. I made an edit on a Wikipedia page on a show I liked and I had good information about. "After I draftified this article, a newbie 132Lemons132 created a new article on the same topic Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum with the same content." is what the admin said. One thing I remember, while I was making the edit I made an empty page by accident, and maybe that caused the issue. 
So, I was blocked, and I made many unban appeals not really giving good reasons because I was confused and just asking "why am I blocked? I mean all I did was make a big edit on a show I liked." In ALL honesty, I wasn't linked to any of those accounts nor paid to edit that page nor did I use sockpuppet accounts on purpose. 
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sunuraju/Archive " is the investigation (note that my intention isn’t to criticize the admins). In that page they talk about how I was linked or a sock of one of the other accounts. Again, I’m not linked or know any of those accounts; this is my main account. What I should have done is explain the situation, ask for forgiveness, and say I won't do it again; I'm sorry I didn’t. In my appeal, I said the only alt I made was 'idontknowlolol'. I didn’t bring this up initially because it was created at least 2 years before my block, and the investigation had no correlation to it. This alt wasn't for sockpuppetry; I think it made 1 or 2 edits because I was on a new device. 
It got blocked later, but I didn’t intend to sockpuppet—I simply edited a show I liked and didn’t have access to my Lemons account then. Then I got the standard offer in December, but since I was blocked in November I thought I could appeal in April. I messed up the dates; I thought my 6 months started during the investigation. That’s my mistake. Sorry about that too; I spent hours writing that appeal and took it seriously. 
Now, in the standard offer it said to do some edits on other Wikimedia projects. "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/132Lemons132 " I know it isn’t much, but I made some edits a few months ago. I looked into the other media and didn’t find it that interesting. I spent at least 2 hours looking for things to edit, and I didn’t want to edit for the sake of it. I only did it where needed and researched it. I apologize if it isn’t enough. 
To summarise, I was naive/unprofessional with my responses because I was confused about being blocked and admitted having the alt 'idontknowlolol'. I want to sincerely apologise for everything. I understand how my actions may have looked from an administrator’s perspective, and I’m truly sorry for the trouble. I should have explained things properly instead of repeatedly appealing without understanding. I’ve learned from this and want a genuine chance to edit constructively and be part of the community again. I feel that I’ve changed a lot in the last 10–11 months. I’ve been honest and truthful in this message, though I may have been redundant, but I wanted to explain everything clearly. 
I feel like I’ve tried my best. If still unsure, I’d be willing to start with limited editing rights or a probationary period and demonstrate I can contribute constructively before full access is restored. Thank you for reading this appeal. I just want a fair chance to be part of the community again, and I hope anyone I may have been unprofessional to can forgive me. [[User:132Lemons132|132Lemons132]] ([[User talk:132Lemons132#top|talk]]) 09:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, Before I start I want to say that I will be completely honest in this whole appeal. It’s been 6 months, so I'd like to explain my situation in full.
In 2024, November-ish, an admin messaged me about an edit I made and he asked me if I was being monetized. I replied no, but then was put in a sockpuppetry investigation. I made an edit on a Wikipedia page on a show I liked and I had good information about. "After I draftified this article, a newbie 132Lemons132 created a new article on the same topic Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum with the same content." is what the admin said. One thing I remember, while I was making the edit I made an empty page by accident, and maybe that caused the issue. 
So, I was blocked, and I made many unban appeals not really giving good reasons because I was confused and just asking "why am I blocked? I mean all I did was make a big edit on a show I liked." In ALL honesty, I wasn't linked to any of those accounts nor paid to edit that page nor did I use sockpuppet accounts on purpose. 
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sunuraju/Archive " is the investigation (note that my intention isn’t to criticize the admins). In that page they talk about how I was linked or a sock of one of the other accounts. Again, I’m not linked or know any of those accounts; this is my main account. What I should have done is explain the situation, ask for forgiveness, and say I won't do it again; I'm sorry I didn’t. In my appeal, I said the only alt I made was 'idontknowlolol'. I didn’t bring this up initially because it was created at least 2 years before my block, and the investigation had no correlation to it. This alt wasn't for sockpuppetry; I think it made 1 or 2 edits because I was on a new device. 
It got blocked later, but I didn’t intend to sockpuppet—I simply edited a show I liked and didn’t have access to my Lemons account then. Then I got the standard offer in December, but since I was blocked in November I thought I could appeal in April. I messed up the dates; I thought my 6 months started during the investigation. That’s my mistake. Sorry about that too; I spent hours writing that appeal and took it seriously. 
Now, in the standard offer it said to do some edits on other Wikimedia projects. "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/132Lemons132 " I know it isn’t much, but I made some edits a few months ago. I looked into the other media and didn’t find it that interesting. I spent at least 2 hours looking for things to edit, and I didn’t want to edit for the sake of it. I only did it where needed and researched it. I apologize if it isn’t enough. 
To summarise, I was naive/unprofessional with my responses because I was confused about being blocked and admitted having the alt 'idontknowlolol'. I want to sincerely apologise for everything. I understand how my actions may have looked from an administrator’s perspective, and I’m truly sorry for the trouble. I should have explained things properly instead of repeatedly appealing without understanding. I’ve learned from this and want a genuine chance to edit constructively and be part of the community again. I feel that I’ve changed a lot in the last 10–11 months. I’ve been honest and truthful in this message, though I may have been redundant, but I wanted to explain everything clearly. 
I feel like I’ve tried my best. If still unsure, I’d be willing to start with limited editing rights or a probationary period and demonstrate I can contribute constructively before full access is restored. Thank you for reading this appeal. I just want a fair chance to be part of the community again, and I hope anyone I may have been unprofessional to can forgive me. [[User:132Lemons132|132Lemons132]] ([[User talk:132Lemons132#top|talk]]) 09:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

132Lemons132 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment