Misplaced Pages

User talk:Blappo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:25, 24 April 2009 editDayewalker (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,182 editsm Reverted edits by Blappo (talk) to last version by CardinalDan← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:46, 17 June 2013 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,648 editsm Signing comment by 81.82.157.58 - "" 
(54 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
ban me? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== re:Stop reverting my edits ==


{{unblock reviewed|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. ] (]) 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Blappo|decline=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. ] (]) 06:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)}}
You know fully well that that hidden comment doesn't point at the age but at the college due to edit conflict before. You changed without discussion, you should expect a revert. ]] ''']''' 04:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


== April 2009 == == Note to reviewing admin ==
] This is the '''only warning''' you will receive for your disruptive comments. <br> The next time you make a ]{{#if:User talk:Chandler|&#32;as you did at ]}}, you '''will''' be ] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa4im --> ''You've been warned . Trying to be cool on the internet always works.'' ]] ''']''' 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


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 seems inexcusable to me. ] <small>(])</small> 06:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The <span class="plainlinks"></span> you made to the page ] has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the ] for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative ]. You may also wish to read the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-huggle1 --> ] (]) 05:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


{{unblock reviewed|1=original unblock reason|decline=No reasoning given for request. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)}}
== 3RR Warning on Keith Olbermann ==


WHY, EXACTLY, haven't the vandals of my talk page been warned? ANY of them?
You're now at 3RR on ]. Please read ] to understand that wikipedia editors are limited to three reversions of the same content per day on an article. Please do not edit war, and discuss things on the talk page. ] (]) 05:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


*Blappo, Misplaced Pages takes some getting used to. It's technically not your talk page. If you want to work on the encyclopedia you just need to take a deep breath and calm down. I understand you're outraged and feel like you've been wronged. But I suggest you let it go and focus on learning the ropes here. What do you say? ] (]) 06:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Keith Olbermann|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''By just posting a comment you've not created a consensus'' ]] ''']''' 05:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

==Your recent edits==

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!<!-- Template:Tilde --> --] (]) 05:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:46, 17 June 2013

ban me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.157.58 (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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 logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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.

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)

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 logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No reasoning given for request. Nja 07:33, 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.

WHY, EXACTLY, haven't the vandals of my talk page been warned? ANY of them?

  • Blappo, Misplaced Pages takes some getting used to. It's technically not your talk page. If you want to work on the encyclopedia you just need to take a deep breath and calm down. I understand you're outraged and feel like you've been wronged. But I suggest you let it go and focus on learning the ropes here. What do you say? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)