User talk:76.186.225.139

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Satori Son refused to answer a simple question after it was politely asked multiple times. If he had a reason to suspect that page edits were vandalism, he should have said why he thought so. Deleting users' comments is not a mature way of dealing with valid questions.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Satori Son refused to answer a simple question after it was politely asked multiple times. If he had a reason to suspect that page edits were vandalism, he should have said why he thought so. Deleting users' comments is not a mature way of dealing with valid questions. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Satori Son refused to answer a simple question after it was politely asked multiple times. If he had a reason to suspect that page edits were vandalism, he should have said why he thought so. Deleting users' comments is not a mature way of dealing with valid questions. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Satori Son refused to answer a simple question after it was politely asked multiple times. If he had a reason to suspect that page edits were vandalism, he should have said why he thought so. Deleting users' comments is not a mature way of dealing with valid questions. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note to reviewing admin: Actually, I tried to answer the question on my talk page. I was unable to do so immediately because of edit conflicts. Said edit conflicts involved this user calling me a "jerk", a "jerk" again, and finally "pompous ass". If this editor would like to have a civil discussion about his edits after the block expires, I would be more than happy to do so. But in the meantime, they should cool down for 24 hours and read WP:CIVIL. Thank you, Satori Son 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem plausible to me. You certainly seemed to get past the "edit conflicts" when you deleted my comments on your Talk page without responding to them. I wanted to have a civil discussion, but you were making it impossible to do so by not replying to my questions. If you didn't ignore and then delete valid questions, you might get called a "jerk" less often.

By the way, I didn't call you a pompous ass, I said I WOULD call you a pompous ass. Apparently my initial assessment of your reading comprehension wasn't far off. Also, I asked if you wanted to be a jerk the first time. Apparently you chose in the affirmative.