:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
LOL that the same admin who made the block reviews the unblock request.  Just a "slight" conflict of interest.
I had only made a single edit to the page in question when this user abusively put a "edit war" template on my page and then threatened to report me for saying he "acted like he owned the page," a justifiable statement when he reverted an edit that simply removed an unnecessary, obvious, redundant statement that did not alter the factual content of the article. Had it been an ongoing edit war, that would be different, but I made a SINGLE edit after a previous edit ten days ago.  That he would put an "edit war" template on my page in response to a single edit that only dealt style and not factual content is pretty clear evidence of harassment that he believes he owns the page.
He continued to harass me on MY OWN talk page.  How are my responses on MY OWN TALK PAGE considered "trying to harass another user???"  The only thing I said in response here that could have remotely been considered a "personal attack" was the comment about his poor writing skills.  It is nothing short of absurd that someone who refuses to allow "his" pages to be edited can abusively put an "edit warring" template on my page and I'm the one sanctioned.  As I said, I only want to report that hideous article to the Baseball Project and be done with it, and I can easily switch my IP address as often as I feel like resetting my router, but you would rather make me wait 24 hours to be internally consistent with the IP addresses.  How beneficial to Wikipedia.  Nice that a "no shit, Sherlock" is block worthy but articles written in a style that would make any high school English teacher vomit are allowed to remain unedited. 68.81.192.142  22