User talk:Oiboy77/Archive 1

Unwarranted

These blocks on me are unwarranted! Wikipedia is an Encylopedia and NOT a political propaganda playground. ei. Reliable un-bias sources MUST be provided.

Take a look at the Talk pages of the admin who blocked originally and see for yourself. He will block anyone who questions or sources info that does not have a Zionist perspective. (see humus sapiens talk page) I can see if it was just me but it's not, far from it. Can an impartial admin please look at this and draw conclusion. Editing an article withPOV tags is not vandalism; I even posted the reason behind it on the Talk:Israel board. User_talk:Humus_sapiens | User_talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

NPOV 4 EVER! --Oiboy77 12:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

June 2006

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance to stop vandalising

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Palestine, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block put in place because I changed the order of languages in Palestine article to Arabic 1st. As it is national language. The article was written in a biased POV. Refering to Palestine as a region and not a country. Block was placed using bias based on personal beliefs. (see other posts by admin)

Please see wikipedia is not a soapbox --pgk^(talk) 08:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your contributions and agree with the blocking administrator. The block is a good one, unblocking is not appropriate. Take some time to think about the suggestions made to you and the warnings given, and when you come back, please edit constructively. Request denied. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite reasons why I was blocked, or how I violated Wikipedia's NPOV stance?

Maybe when you vandalized the Israel article? Schrodingers Mongoose 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):

Please review your contributions and the warnings given to you, there is no reason to unblock you at this time.

Request handled by: Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove this template from your page.

July 2006

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Israel, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Avi 22:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the word vandalize in context. I simply added a tag to the article which is fitting (see talk page).

3RR warning

Hello Oiboy, I should notify you that you have violated the 3RR on Israel, if you do not revert yourself or if you revert again you could be blocked from editing wikipedia as per WP:3RR.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove warnings from your talk page, as this is also considered to be vandalism. Thank you.--Andeh 10:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Andeh 11:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing

You have repeatedly [1], [2] moved or removed other users' text from my talk page. It is considered vandalism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Neutrality Back to Wikipedia

Removed ublock link as I do not have a block on editing, thusly do not need an unblock request. Avraham please do not revert this as I am no longer applying for an unblock!!--Oiboy77 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. -- Avi 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see[[3]] If you would like to deny this unblock request please post here before denying it. I think it is not up to one admin and his "friend" to decide if POV tags are justified or not. I also would like to add that Wikipedia is a place for NEUTRAL POV, not a personal agenda. It seems Humus sapiens volates the idea of keeping Wikipedia neutral. Please take a look at some of his edits. They are clearly BIASED. (reverts without explaination when there is no vandalism; random bannings) Humus sapiens this is NOT the place to push your personal agenda or views on people.

Please see: [4]

This hits the nail on the head, so to speak. and: [5] and: [6]

--Oiboy77 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree that I have failed to see Humus acting in the name of neutrality. He seems quite intent on putting forth his own personal views.Smitty Mcgee 19:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with POV. This user vandalized the Israel article....he wasn't trying to make it more neutral or just insert tags. Schrodingers Mongoose 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Israel

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's you who are edit warring and reverting peoples work without any thought. Please read Wikipedia's policy of 3 Reverts.

Please refrain from adding bogus tags. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean bogus tags??

Well, where is the vandalism? Blnguyen | rant-line 07:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverting a page, calling the editor a vandal and then reverting WITHOUT explaination is Vandalism.

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 08:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what you did to your talk page.

I did not revert your edits to my talk page. That said, I also did not vandalise the article and therefore your report was bogus. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted someones work without FIRST seeking consensus on the talk page, you then went on to accuse me of vandalism for reverting the page to a previous edit. --Oiboy77 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that Israel is actually a part of Palestine is flagrant vandalism... I do not need to seek consensus for any edit, let alone reverting an obvious a case of vandalism. See WP:BB and WP:VAND. That said, if edits I made were vandalism, which they were not, they would, and should, have been reverted. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 08:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the fact that YOU consider that vandalism POV. Tagging me with a vandal tag for reverting to something I didn't even right though agree is ludacris and childish.--Oiboy77 08:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove warnings

You have done this a number of times.

For the record:

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. -- Avi 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oiboy77 is not just a vandal. He/she/it is a WP:TROLL. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived instead of deleted

I owe you an apology; you are correct, you archived instead of deleted. Although, this is why edit summaries are useful. -- Avi 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humus case

Oiboy77 is not just a vandal. He/she/it is a WP:TROLL. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Hi Oiboy77[reply]

I'm listed as involved in this - was it you who cited me and if so in what way do you think I relate to it? (I'm glad the problems of POV in this and related articles are being raised.) Thanks. Itsmejudith 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've listing a request to remove humus sapiens administrative powers from wikipedia. Take a look at his edits and reasoning and draw your own conclusion. Feel free to post a statement on the arbitration page. I have no vendetta against him personally but would like to see a NPOV injected into the articles pertaining to the Middle East, and he seems to be a barrier in that process.--Oiboy77 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

The capital status of Jerusalem is handled in Jerusalem and Positions on Jerusalem. Asking for a citation in a footnote on the Israel page is nothing more than POV baiting. -- Avi 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings July 2006

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. - MSTCrow 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSTCrow at least sign your stupid block requests. You realy need some help. Can you explain what I "blatantly vandaliszed?"--Oiboy77 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never used the term "blatantly vandalized," so I am unsure as to what you are quoting. As for your act of vandalism, you removed a sock puppet tag on Smitty's user talk page, which is an act of vandalism. Removing such tags is grounds for a ban. - MSTCrow 23:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is and was never any evidence that User:Smitty Magee is using sockpuppets. Unless you have evidence he does the tag stays off. That is vandalism. Prove your case he was/is using sockpuupets and you can put the tag pack without me reverting it.--Oiboy77 23:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sock puppeteer tags. One for suspected sock puppeteers and one for confirmed sock puppeteers. Any reversion of the tag is vandalism and will result in a ban. - MSTCrow 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats and attitude is silly. Please ban me!!! Please ban me!!! --Oiboy77 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{fact}} tags

Dumping fact tags indiscrimanently on every paragraph in an article is a form of vandalism, and I know you are intelligent enough to understand that, from some of your other posts. I understand you have strong feelings, as do many other people. Please try to work with people, and remember that wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you will likely do more good and feel more accomplished than you do now. -- Avi 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Your recent edit to Allegations of Israeli apartheid (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You have been asked to stop unilaterally moving pages, as you did with Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Wikipedia has clear procedures for moving pages. Other than in exceptional cases those procedures should be followed. Your actions are causing considerable problems for other users and are being seen by some as vandalism. Vandalism of pages results in a user being blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Avi 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. There's a pretty intense case in front of the Arbcomm about such "unilateral" moves; doing so seems to serve no other purpose than inviting trouble for yourself. --Leifern 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]