User talk:Aceplante

October 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 22 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for "not here to build an encyclopedia". After reading the provided link (some of the reasons an account may be blocked for this), I realized I did not do any of those reasons. This is a fairly new account and I have only ever made a few changes. Recently I tried to fix something but gave up because there were way too many inconsistencies to fix. So I rolled it back and gave up. Could that be why I was blocked indefinitely? I only just noticed because I logged in and tried to fix the wording of another article." Aceplante (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Taking a look at your edits, many of them were straight-forward vandalism, changing cited information so as to vandalise it, or removing sourced content. Yamla (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2020 (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.

You are not permitted to modify your declined unblock request, as this is a currently active block. Do not do so again, please. You are welcome to make a new unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

So a while ago I ran across a page with inaccurate historical information, which I tried to fix, but there were too many inconsistencies to fix so I rolled the page back to what it was before I had begun and gave up, but later found I was blocked anyways? So to make this very clear, yes I am hoping this block can be removed becuase I was blocked anyways despite rolling back the change as if I had never made it. I was trying to help but there was too much to fix and gave up. The way the article is written, it was almost impossible to fix and if you care about accuracy feel free to fix it yourselves but I do not feel it is worth my effort. However, I do sometimes run into grammatical errors that I guess I assumed you would want fixed? So I fixed them becuase again, I'm trying to help, but if you dont care or want errors fixed then feel free to leave me blocked I guess. Anyways, I'm only back now because I found a small issue with a page I was using for school and Id rather use an account than an Ip (and I still do not understand why I was blocked for a change I technically never even made). I wanted to bring attention to some racially charged language I found and fixed, but for some reason it was immediately rolled back? I can provide a link so you can fix it yourself if you dont plan on unblocking me. Again, I'm just trying to help.

Accept reason:

Following your request, I have unblocked you. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We block the underlying IP as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: - would you object to an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: sure, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I don't think this unblock is working out the way you hoped it would. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to only fix spelling and grammar mistakes as I run across them. What did you mean by this? Aceplante (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 07:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this becuase I keep fixing the other page? Please take a look at the edit I keep having to make and let me know what you think. Aceplante (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get consensus on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]