User talk:Shootsrubberbands

WikiHypocrisy

wikipedia advertises itself as a bias-free^[1] encyclopaedia,, what a lie, wiki is not an encyclopedia of the people, it is an encyclopedia of the admins (and their bias)

it is like reddit and the mods, what a [expletive] joke it all is

they tell you you have to submit original images, then ban you for original "research" according to if they favor your data

nevermind objectivity, nevermind minority or majority views -- it is the hate of wiki admins which determines the content at wikipedia, again evidence is on the page

Welcome!

Fully protected

Template-protected

Semi-protected

Create protected

Move protected

Upload protected

Pending changes protected (level 1)

Pending changes protected (level 2)

Permanently protected

Protected by Office

slakr, what you are terming edit-warring on my part is incorrect, i am just a regular editor, you should not have blocked me

it is like you are walking down a street slakr, and you see a person dousing a home in gasoline, then setting the home on fire, you as "admin" then arrest the the arsonist, and then you arrest the home owner

and i did not ask for my block to be reviewed, this is all very unprofessional of wikipedia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Two-state solution. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. slakr\ talk / 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you meant to add that template to request an unblock; thus I've edited it so the code appears, not the empty unblock message itself. If you want to request an unblock, please add the template to the bottom of the page with a reason provided. Huon (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

roger, Huon

frst: i was previously unaware that wikipedia had all of this formal "edit-warring" to have to deal with, in the past whenever i made improvements of the page (Two-state_solution) i would get a few vandals trying to deface the page, and eventually they would quit. What we had in this instance is admin(s) working in tandem with vandal-warring-editors to deface the improvements to a decidedly stale page,

this Two-state_solution is always going to be a subject/topic which will magnetize (heavy sustained vandalism) like:

Vandalism

Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Jesus, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism.

second: i suggest some sort of protection for parts of the page, specifically for the 2000 Camp David Summit section and the Two States Solution section as these sections are just too tempting to the vandals to come by and spend about 10 seconds and play the role of spoiler - so some kind of protection is required, the flow of the page makes a whole lot more sense if the graphic explanatory map of The_Allon_Plan is included,

third: i will forego trying to improve the See_also section of the page as that is where this edit-warring on me was initiated by the vandal(s) end user or admin

note: about the sentence that is written in the section The Allon Plan which refers to a "no-state solution" presumption which is unfair to Israel having statehood recognized by the United Nations since 1947, it is like saying "no-Israel solution" which is unacceptable - only i dare not write anything into wikipedia due to the vandals that are here at wiki, both end-user and admin

Someguy1221 should have blocked the vandal, and restored the page to the version of the page before the warring-end-user began to vandalise, in not doing so Someguy1221 acted as an accessory to vandalism, and to boot the See also section goes unimproved as the result of Someguy1221 bias

Content disputes

On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.

Shortcut

WP:PREFER

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above).

Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes.

jim1138 too i didnt have my email open

jim1138, and Someguy1221, and MaxSem,

your idea of collaboration and cooperation is to:

1. vandalize with the aid of your agent Zeremony

2. and leave off the info that was vandalized

3. and let the vandal "win" when the page is vandalized

you "admins" make no sense, the period of time of being Blocked should be with the page as the page and not the post-vandalized page

you three gentlemen i assume are not exactly professional are you, there will always be an agent to ruin the page,

you should not have blocked me as i was just a regular user, not vandalizing (deleting) anything,

you should have blocked the user that was vandal-warring on me

you teamed up with the vandals (as hypocrites posing like admins) it is fair to say

--- mark

without the vandalizing-warring on the part of the offending user --- there is no warring

the evidence that you teamed up with the vandals? just look at the page, you geniuses,

if you don't want the pages improved, what are you doing there as admins at wikipedia

just trying to paste this here to keep track of it, and thank you wikipedia, an honor and a privilege

Request reason:

i should not have been blocked as i was "warred" upon by someone else, i entered only factual, encyclopedic (well resourced) info, making wikipedia that much better Someguy1221 left the page with none of the good info on it, no product - almost like he has alterior motives to the best wikipedia as can be made, to be clear: i deleted no ones info, and my info was deleted not with the best of intentions - a "dry" page, i "collaborated" but people were not collaborating with me, instead deleting me - whereas i was not deleting their valued input, well i was in the right, the other person vandalised my work which has been 15 years in the making --- Someguy1221 should have prohibited the vandal, i mean with 7 billion people on earth how is a legit user ever going to be able to get anything written at wikipedia if the legit user goes down with the vandals -- it doesn't make sense -- how about a little protection Someguy1221 ? Perhaps Max Semenik doesnt have the right stuff to be both a vandal and an administrator in the same breath

Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BiH (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Shootsrubberbands/sandbox (April 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shootsrubberbands/sandbox.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Shootsrubberbands/sandbox

Hello Shootsrubberbands. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Shootsrubberbands/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Two-state solution. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Two-state solution. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice - arab-israeli conflict

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 05:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

i should not have been blocked as i was "warred" upon by someone else, i entered only factual, encyclopedic (well resourced) info, making wikipedia that much better Someguy1221 left the page with none of the good info on it, no product - almost like he has alterior motives to the best wikipedia as can be made, to be clear: i deleted no ones info, and my info was deleted not with the best of intentions - a "dry" page, i "collaborated" but people were not collaborating with me, instead deleting me - whereas i was not deleting their valued input, well i was in the right, the other person vandalised my work which has been 15 years in the making --- Someguy1221 should have prohibited the vandal, i mean with 7 billion people on earth how is a legit user ever going to be able to get anything written at wikipedia if the legit user goes down with the vandals -- it doesn't make sense -- how about a little protection Someguy1221 ? Perhaps Max Semenik doesnt have the right stuff to be both a vandal and an administrator in the same breath

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: no edit warring, even if you're right. The other participant in this edit war has also been blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2015 (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.

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Two-state solution. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. slakr^\ talk / 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=jimmy+wales+bias+reflected+in+wikipedia

[1] ttps://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=jimmy+wales+bias+reflected+in+wikipedia

[1]