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)

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)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ) Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ) Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)
 * 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)

Well, I sincerly apolgise for my actions and kindly request I be unblocked. Acres100 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read through those policy pages? J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)