User talk:129.7.146.249

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to 1948 Palestinian exodus, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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! --SineBot (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

I note that at least one editor has complained about your canvassing of messages to this point and I request that you cease such activity as it can lead to blocking of your account.--VS ^talk 22:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your apology is accepted. ANI has a way of attracting its own interested parties and asking other users to look into the situation is not necessary. Could I also ask that you (a) sign off each of your edits by using 4 tildes - ask me if you don't know how, and (b) consider creating an account so that your edits gain more weight as not just a drive-by (especially given that your IP is assigned to a University). Best wishes--VS ^talk 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• (further to your posts on my talk page) To be brief - (1) the ANI Notice is about informing an editor that they are being discussed not for general canvassing, and (2) Cynicism in any aspect of human endeavour in the end does nothing but cause damage to the cynic. There are over 6.5 million wikipedia editors - most of which are keen, supportive and willing to take the risk. If you don't agree then walk away - if you really want to help, really want to add positive to the free world of knowledge that is wikipedia then join up and take the bad with the good. When you look closely you will find that the vast majority of this project is damn good. Oh and your signature worked fine - well done.--VS ^talk 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

apparently blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VirtualSteve#re:Canvassing

To VirtualSteve:

If you are still looking - it appears as I predicted, Krimpet has blocked me claiming I am a "sockpuppet" - of user:1948remembered.

I am saddened to see it come to this but the experience has shown me that you were incorrect about wikipedia and the behavior of administrators.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

it appears as I predicted, Krimpet has blocked me claiming I am a "sockpuppet" - of user:1948remembered

Decline reason:

I am informed that you are not considered a sock-puppet of 1948remembered but rather that you have been trolling and disrupting with various dynamic IPs, all geolocated to Houston, TX, for the last few days both here and on IRC where he was harassing people. He's not a "sockpuppet" per se, rather just yet another reincarnation of the same exact user as detailed here. I have no reason at this stage to dispute Krimpet's assessment and I will not wheel war with another admin when I have been in discussion with the blocked editor. I remind you that you have other avenues to persist with your claim should you disagree.— --VS ^talk 23:51, 13 February 2008 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

see below

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=see below |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=see below |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=see below |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm sorry, but I have never been on IRC, I have only edited from one place (though I suspect my IP may have changed, as they do from time to time), and I do not know why Krimpet claims it is "trolling" to discuss the misgivings I have about the behavior of an administrator or the Wikipedia system.

I am saddened that it seems even apparently well-meaning wikipedians cannot act in good faith, but your actions are proving the accusations of your most vehement critics to be quite true.

I would be interested in seeing the supposed "other avenues" you detail, but as I understand the policies, they all rely on my having to email people and sit through tedious, months-long procedures in order to even get a hearing, and the external accounts I have seen (which include many links to on-wikipedia history) all indicate that these are little more than staged farces designed to protect the very behavior I was concerned about seeing.

---