User talk:Billybunt

Welcome!

Hello, Billybunt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

October 2010
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.

If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Colin Fox, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. This edit, as well as being defamatory against a living person, also has some bearing on a criminal trial currently taking place, HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan. This is highly disruptive editing, so chuck it. PatGallacher (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Catriona Grant, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Carolyn Leckie, you may be blocked from editing. Fæ (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your . Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology
I appologise for this editing, I left my PC switched on and Logged in while I went for a break at work today and on the 6th of October, I have the automatically log on facility enabled, one of my work collegues desided to use my pc for a bit of mischeif, and edited several pages, for my part I didnt notice the 1st warning on the 6th, or I would have made sure I logged out.

I would like to request my log in be restored, and I will ensure I log out of my pc at work in future, I appologise for the distress this has caused.

Billybunt (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I pass no judgement on whether the block should be lifted, but you might point out to your colleague that there is a criminal offence of "vilification of witnesses" i.e. attacking witnesses in such an intemperate fashion as could discourage members of the public from coming forward and acting as witnesses. PatGallacher (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:BROTHER. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed this out to him, how do I appeal my ban? who do I need to talk to?
 * Probably me, though you can also ask for independent review (see WP:APPEAL). In all honesty, for as long as you talk about co-workers, I guarantee that it won't work. However we do also have a second-chance (colloquially 'give em enough rope') system in place for those who can show they will be an asset through genuine and substantive improvement of articles. See 2ndchance. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So are you telling me that despite the fact I didnt edit the articles, and that I have never previously written anything which can be considered deterimental, you will not consider my appeal?
 * I have considered your appeal, and consequently referred you to the little brother essay which puts it much more diplomatically than I could. I have also offered you a second chance, and told you how to appeal to an independent administrator. But don't listen to me - go on, add the unblock template below and give it your best. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

By your guidelines

Note that "indefinite" does not necessarily mean "long" or "infinite". It means "however long is needed for the user to address the issue". This can be minutes, hours - or indeed the user may never do so. An indefinite block means the blocking administrator did not set a time limit on the block. The user needs to discuss the matter with an administrator before any unblock. It could be because the owner needs to confirm things are okay (and nothing's wrong). Or it could be due to some problem needing attention or the user needing to understand some behavior was inappropriate.

Typical examples are where the account owner must be contacted (eg suspected 'hacking' of their account), and users whose behavior was severely inappropriate (eg threats, "outings", repeated vandalism or edit warring, repeated failure to listen, etc). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia community so behaviors like these are not acceptable. For some issues, a user may need to stop, learn our site norms, and confirm they will not repeat the behavior (or will edit in accordance with certain conditions), before an unblock can take place. I would request an administrator (other than the one who blocked me) contact me to discuss this, as I feel a long term blocking is excessive.

Also, it appears that you may not have read Guide to appealing blocks. The reason I point this out again is that you may lose the ability to edit this page if you post unblock requests that do not address the issue(s) of your block. If you cannot edit this page then you will not be able to take advantage of any of the other options that are available to you.  Tide  rolls  15:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and Have appologised, although I dont agree with the ban for the reasons stated, I must accept it, I would like to state I have never previously made any inflammatory remarks in edits, and If allowed back I would continue not to make them, I accept you must take action against someone doing so especially during a High profile court case, I would ask that you now at least state how long my ban will be, as i feel a lifetime ban would be excessive for something which at most took 5mins to do, I look forward to your responce.

Thank you
 * You will be unblocked tomorrow if you agree to the following:
 * You accept that the edits were inappropriate, and that biographies in particular must meet the highest standards at all times;
 * You will read the entire Biographies of living persons and Neutral point of view policies;
 * You will log out when not using your account to prevent your little brother colleague(s) making inappropriate edits from this account;
 * All of your edits will be constructive; and
 * Any further nonsense will result in an immediate block

OK with that? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree to all your instructions

thank you

I have read Biographies of living persons and Neutral point of view policies, and I fully accept the posts were inappropriate, and did infact attempt to go back and edit them, but found you had got there before I did.
 * You are now unblocked and welcome to contribute constructively. Drop by my talk page if you ever need any help. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)