User talk:Prideful

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).

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

Request reason:

The blocking administrator seems to be confused. I have not committed any vandalism; I am merely balancing the articles about Arab settlements in the West Bank by removing bias and making the articles similar to those about the Jewish towns in the West Bank.

Decline reason:

No, it's either vandalism or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; in either case it is unwelcome. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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'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).

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

Request reason:

How is balancing the articles about Arab settlements in the West Bank by removing bias and making the articles similar to those about the Jewish towns in the West Bank vandalism or disruption? Why are Arabs and Muslims allowed free reign in Wikipedia, but Jews are barely tolerated?

Decline reason:

Notwithstanding my total agreement with Jpgordon about your behavior (see here and here), as you might guess any edits in this area are sensitive, and have a long history of creating as much drama as they do in the real world (without the suicide bombings and helicopter assassinations). So, a long time ago, the Arbitration Committee issued a ruling that says we act aggressively to cut off this behavior early. If you look at the record of blocks and bans at the bottom you'll see a fair amount of editors on both sides getting this. If this keeps up we are seriously thinking of only allowing the United Nations peacekeeping forces to edit those articles. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The user (probably a sock of someone banned) embarked on a spree of defacing articles on Palestinian cities by adding political sloganage to them, with no attempt at discussion. I don't believe this was in good faith but should be treated as vandalism. This sort of thing is just what we don't need around here and I argue that the block should be confirmed. Zero^talk 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion, the articles about Jewish cities in the West Bank and Arab settlements in the West Bank should be held to different standards? Zero0000 is hardly neutral and unbiased in this subject, since I recognize him as being one the anti-Israel activists on Wikipedia. Also note how he defaces an article on a Jewish city by inserting United Nations propaganda and political sloganage here and calls a city a mere "settlement," even though a city is a type of settlement.

Very well, I see that Wikipedia administrators are irreversibly anti-Semitic and will not listen to reason. Therefore, I will be forced to create more accounts in order to combat Wikipedia's inherent anti-Semitism.

Thank you for letting us know about your intention to sock, you have now made it extraordinarily easy to sniff out your future accounts. -asad (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

What's the matter, Arab? It's not enough for you to steal my homeland; now you feel compelled to steal my comments?

Funny, if I recall my history, the Jews lost that land to the Roman Empire, whom last I check were not Arab. And you don't deserve it back either.

One obvious sock-candidate: User:Asdfakj Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup -asad (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you say your heart is in Anabta. If you even bother to read that article, it says it was once Israelite before your kind stole it from us.

I guess your kind shouldn't have murdered the Son of God then, since according to the Bible, you lost that land (see Matthew 21:43). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.208.120 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not know what you are talking about. Are you referring to that pathetic hippie Yeshua? How could that idiotic loser be the son of a nonexistent being? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therusher10 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter, Jew? It's not enough for you to kill your messiah, but you feel fit to insult him. No wonder the Bible says only 144,000 Jews will survive the second coming. I thank the Arabs for doing God's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.180.253.185 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]