User talk:Blappo

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).

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

---

Request reason:

ALL of my talk page edits have been within bounds and appropriate. ALL of my other edits were appropriate. You had a troll come on MY talk page, and vandalize it by reverting it, and my comments on user pages were to address their hypocrisy. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason people should be able to openly accuse me of vandalism, edit my talk page in their OWN act of vandalism, then get blocked. I admit I played with comments originally, but that stopped quickly, and ALL of my edits since have been to address the open vandalism and hypocrisy that was done against me. Blappo (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Blappo

Decline reason:

Looking at the history of this, you've been extremely belligerent from the moment you were first reverted. And while there may have been some inappropriate reversions to this talk page, that post-dates and doesn't nearly make acceptable your disruptive activity. I highly suggest you either drop the issue or commit to only participating in a civil manner on the relevant talk page. Attempting to pursue a perceived injustice against oneself generally only results in an eventual banning. And to prevent you from doing just that, I am declining this unblock request. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

By the way, any answer that doesn't explain why the vandals who vandalized my page were allowed to get by with nothing, or why "reverting vandalism" is an OK comment in the edit summary, but calling someone who has vandalized my page a "vandal" is Personal attack. I find it difficult to believe anyone could think that was a legitimate comment, until I actually saw someone try to forward it as one. Of course, being attacked and called a vandal couldn't POSSIBLY cause someone to get pissed, could it? I GUARANTEE I will be the only one chastised in this situation. Blappo (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Blappo

Fine, reading your idiotic reaction, I'm not surprised. The fuckwit who made the orginal "it jsut flew by" statement didn;t get chastised for noit assuming good faith and being belligerent, did he?

You people are power mad clowns, and I'll enjoy my lifetime of contributing NOTHING to your pathetic farce. Nice job running off people who actually contribute something othetr than heavy handed stupidity and hypocrisy.

PS, my girfriend works with the wikimedia servers. That should be fun for me.

Note to reviewing admin

After reviewing the logs, I initially lengthened the block, then shortened it. There clearly was some inappropriate restoration of warnings that this user was within his/her rights to remove, but repeated personal attacks, and specifically misrepresenting others' comments to include a personal attack after final warning seems inexcusable to me. Toddst1 (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ANd to you, your life is editing Wikipedia and preveting other form doing so. Kill yourself now and save yourself the pain of living such a worthless life.