User talk:76.19.57.107

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "the block was a dispute over content which was immaturely elevated to a complaint of vandalism by a user more interested in forcing point of view commentary than in participating in an intelligent discourse"

Decline reason: "I've reviewed your last few edits, and I have found them not constructive. Do take the 72 hours to cool off. — Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "reason stated for declining unblock had absolutely nothing to do with the purported reason for blocking. "found them not constructive" are weasel words and, in reality, are no reason at all"

Decline reason: "I can explain. Blocks are made based on what is good for the encyclopedia, not what is good for the blocked editor. Since your edits recently have not been what the encyclopedia needs- they've violated WP:NPOV, one of our core policies, unblocking you would most likely lead to more inappropriate edits for others to remove. That hurts the encyclopedia. And since you ignored warnings, you either are unwilling or unable to make appropriate edits. So what's good for the encyclopedia is for you to not be editing right now. When your block expires, we'd love for you to help the encyclopedia by making good, apppropriate, factual additions that make our articles better. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Again, we are are using only weasel words to justify an unjustifiable block. If indeed, blocks are made based on what is good for the encyclopedia, not what is good for the blocked editor, then no block would have occurred. Cut and paste justifications for the actions of another editor who takes exception, without intellectual explanation, serve no purpose and are contradictory to the creation of a public encyclopedia, and, in fact, are not an intellectual discussion, but merely reaffirmation of a POV expressed by one person with rights to block others who disagree with him/her. A sad, sad day for free discussion"

Decline reason: "We are not interested in your opinion of the state of free discussion, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia at any rate. Your block is reset for wasting our time with frivolous unblock requests. — Sandstein (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The blocker has taken action for the sole purpose of converting a wikipedia page into an advertisement and seems intent on preventing value-free commentary if it does not further the editor's agenda of turning the page into a public relations vehicle for its subject. The lack of integrity shown in the reversions promulgated by this 'editor' are indeed appalling."

Decline reason: "What are you basing this on? — Yamla (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "the reviewing administrator has failed to review the reason for the block, has failed to provide any documentation of alleged personal attacks and has merely engaged in unverified parroting of the unjustified reason for blocking offered by an administrator. The original blocking itself constitutes a personal attack. Note the policy: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators" which clearly was not done in this case. Thehelpfulone's response is inappropriate, fails to demonstrate any effort at verification, ignores the blocking policy and is an abuse of the privilege"

Decline reason: "Per diffs provided by Thehelpfulone below. — Sandstein (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.