User talk:Acres100

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Model Farms High School has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Q ^{T C} 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Julia Gillard. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Q ^{T C} 08:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Model Farms High School. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Willows, Queensland, you will be blocked from editing. Your edit.) Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Oakhill College, you will be blocked from editing. Your edit.) Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked your account. This is not a content dispute, this is vandalism, and the fact that you continued to make the edits after a final warning has suggested to me you have no interest in learning to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. If you want to appeal this block, you may use the {{unblock}} template. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2009 (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).

Acres100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block for an indefintie time is unfair. This is a content dispuite. When you look at the wikipedia policy in regard to vandilism states under "what is not Vandilism" "Often, Wikipedians make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of your text removed or substantially rewritten, can certainly be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism." The people invoved have not wanted to disscus this also it is my contention that this matter is an edit war also the please do not bite the newmcoers policy has not been followed in this matter also the edit war policy states "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring. Note that repeated posting of confirmed misinformation or repeated large scale removal of content is often considered vandalism, but in general merely editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes, are not necessarily considered vandalism" The edits that I have made have been truthful and that this is a personal attack by people on wikipedia towards me

Decline reason:

This is not a content dispute. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:19, 17 July 2009 (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.

Acres100 (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2009 (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).

Acres100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

well in relation to the Julia Gilard aticle I know that what I said for a fact is true from knowing the peson personally

Decline reason:

You have not provided a reason for unblocking. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:32, 17 July 2009 (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.

In response to your email, I am not going to unblock you at this time. This clearly was not a content dispute, this was vandalism. Assuming good faith is nice, but when you spit upon the chances you are given through the use of warnings by continuing to make the same edits without any attempt at discussion, your right to be treated as if you are acting in good faith is revoked. Basically, even if your original actions were in good faith, the fact that you continued to make the same edits showed that you were not acting in good faith. I am watching this page, so I request any future replies go here; I will see them quicker here. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look I know Julia Gilard and if you have an issue with what was said I apolgise. However the vandlism policy of wikipedia was not followed. I attempted disscussion with Overlord Q on that users talk back page and recieved no reply. In regard to Oakhill college and model farms high school the way i edited may not have entiirely been in accourdance with wikipedia policy however knowing those schools the infornmation was 100% correct. This seems to be a personal attack on me. I also believe that an indefinte ban is not the right course for this situation and in future I will take greater care with my editing if my ban is lifted. I aopolgise that you feel this way in regard to this editting Acres100 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review our policies of using the neutral point of view, not using original resarch and using reliable sources. Particularly, you should familiarise yourself with our policy of biographies of living people. Note that you are not banned, you are merely blocked. If you are able to convince either myself or any other admin that you will work for the good of the project from now on, you can be unblocked and continue your editing. J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I sincerly apolgise for my actions and kindly request I be unblocked. Acres100 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read through those policy pages? J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read through those policy pages. Acres100 (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin opinion: This is vandalism, plain and simple. To say otherwise is almost as nonsensical as the edits. You have violated pretty much every policy on Wikipedia and not only was J Milburn's original block correct, it comes endorsed by another admin right here. I would say please do not request another unblock. – B.hotep •talk• 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your previous question J Milburn I have read the policy that you refered me to. I would appreciate if you would disscus the duration of how long you intend to keep me blocked Acres100 (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, I apolgise for my actions and ask to be unblocked. I notice that you are online can you please reply Acres100 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to unblock you at this time. I recommend you try another unblock request, and explanation the situation to another admin. They are welcome to overturn my block if they feel that you will contribute productively to the encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of my block

J Milburn, I believe that some time has passed since I have sspoken to you and I am wondering if you would consider liffting the block against me Acres100 (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acres100 (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)== Unblock Request ==[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).

Acres100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request to be unblocked as I believe I havve been blocked for quite some time. I apoligise to the wikipedia commuinity for what is alleged that I have done. I am now wanting to make a contrbution to the wikipedia commuinity

Decline reason:

Alleged? This isn't a court of law; you vandalise, you get blocked. It's pretty simple. If you wanted to contribute to the community, you had the chance to do that from the start. Closedmouth (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2009 (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.

Closedmouth I accept your view however I do believe that I deserve a secound chance. Acres100 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2009 (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).

Acres100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In relation to Closedmouth's comments I accept that view however I have beeen blocked for some time and believe I should be unblocked or at least a time frame be set to my block as indefinte block is unfair. I also apoligise for my actions and have read the relevant wikipedia policies on the issues involved. Apoligise futher more to all people effected by my actions. I also was a new commer to wikipeida when these events which lead to the block occured and believe that this factor should be taken into consideration

Decline reason:

You've had enough time to respond to Anthony's question below. I still feel like you're playing games. Kuru ^talk 02:27, 24 December 2009 (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.

Do you understand and agree that the edits for which you were first warned and then blocked were unequivocal vandalism? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apoligies for the delay to reply to your question Anthony. I disagree with you Kuru that I am playing games by not responding to anthony's question. I have been on holidays reccently and have not had internet accses. I agree that the edits were unequivocal vandalism. However at the time I was a new use to wikipedia which I have stated in the past and I consider that an indefinte block is unfair considering the circumstances stated above. Acres100 (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2010 (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).

Acres100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to appeal the decision to block me for vandilisim. I have been blocked since the 17th of July 2009. I agreee that my edits were vandalisim and I sincerly apoligise for my actions. I disagree with User Kuru saying that I am playing games. Also I disagre that I had sufficiant time to respond to Anthony Bradbury's question. given that I was on holidays and was unable to access the internet also when looking at the dates I do not believe I was given sufficent time to reply in any event. I also notified User Kuru and user Anthony bradbury to my response on my talk page via email a user function on the 12th of January and have not recived any response. I also feel there has not been an adequate regard to the fact I was new to wikipedia at the time and also the time which has passed since I was blocked I believe I should be given a secound chance as in my opinion an indefininte block is unfair.

Decline reason:

You seem to feel that the block is unfair because you were a new user. While we do give considerable leeway to new users who don't know the rules, 'don't vandalize' is a rule that most children learn before they ever join Wikipedia. This request doesn't give me any confidence that unblocking you would be good for Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (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.

Let me see if I have this straight. In the two hours that this account was editing, you managed to insert childish vandalism that disparaged and defamed living persons into four articles, including the biography of the deputy prime minister of Austrailia, and edit warred to keep it there. You also accused one of the editors who cleaned up your mess of stalking and harassing you and that your edits were "the fucking truth". You were warned, unfortunately, five times before being blocked indefinately as a vandalism only account. You then claim that we're "biting the newcomer" and that your edits were not vandalism but were the truth and that this was all a personal attack against you? You then countinue to claim that you know the vicitm of your attack, and that your edits are "the truth". You post another unblock that does not address the problem, and then disappear for three weeks ignoring follow up questions.

I have received no e-mails from you; if they contained some private information which mitigates your unfortunate behavior, then please feel free to re-send - otherwise keep the discussion here and public. I'm usually pretty keen on second chances, but the face you've put forward here is abusive and unaccountable. You're still claiming that this all "unfair". I'll leave this to another admin to evaluate; perhaps someone has a greater tolerance for tomfoolery than I do. Kuru (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru again as I have state above regarding my absence with me being on holidays. I apoligise to you for that Kuru and also anthony.Bradbury for the inconvience caused. However it appeears that this considertation of my ban is due to my not replying to questions for which I have given reasons above. With all due respect to you Kuru to state "I still feel like you're playing games" is inappropriate due to my non reply. Again I wish to take this opportuinity to apoligise sincerly for my actions and the harm they have caused.Acres100 (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]