User talk:Bijobini

Confirmed sock of User:Davkal. See Requests for checkuser/Case/SUVx. If you want to be able to edit again, the first step is to stop socking and stop disrupting. Then you can email the unblock list and discuss conditions. Jehochman Talk 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it insulting to be considered someone I am not because you have decided so. It's even more insulting since my comments were good ones in my opinion and I see no reason why I was considered a puppet in the first place. Bijobini (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to know what I did that you consider "disrupting" Bijobini (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The community determined that User:Davkal is banned from editing. Checkuser confirms that you are Davkal. As you are banned from editing, your continued use of sockpuppet accounts is considered disruptive. I recommend you heed Jehochman's advice and stop. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How was it determined that I am Davkal? Bijobini (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that I created my account last week to pass time while waiting at the office. I am an X-Files fan so I went to the the UFO article to see what was written and I found some unsupported claims so I requested for it to be removed. As you can see on the talk page, I never was impolite or rude. Next thing I know, I am being blocked because you think I am someone I am not and now the only way to regain my account is to stop doing something I am not doing. How am I supposed to do that? Bijobini (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

'''I really want to thank you for your help, your professional behavior, your comprehension, your open attitude towards discussion and your maturity. It was really nice of you to delete my page instead of listening to my arguments. It was nice of you to identify me as Davkal and give me no way to prove that I am a perfectly honest person. Thank you for your efforts!'''

List of my comments (that some find disruptive)
I would like to know who struck through the comments above and who authorized it.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to know. The article can't be fair if we can't even discuss it freely... Bijobini (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

-


 * 1) Oppose. The previous version had a lot of things wrong with it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * what EXACTLY was wrong with it...other than the fact that it didn't fit your personal pov?! SUVx (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article should be neutral and not reflect anybody's point of view, so either you include the skeptics POV or you don't talk about unsupported theories... Bijobini (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

'''IMPORTANT NOTICE: here I am arguing against SUVx who is also accused of being a Dakval puppet. Does it make sense to argue with myself?'''

-

I subbed a pic from Commons that a wikipedia editor snapped and posted. It looks like a genuine airborn object that is unidentified. kwami (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the picture and, I don't know, I tought it was a bird at first. In my opinion, it takes away some credibility from the article. Bijobini (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

-

I think the Pheonix Lights would be the best choice but after seeing the debate over this topic I think we'll stay with your picture Bijobini (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

-

This section should have more references. For example: The research was “being conducted with the thought that the flying objects might be a celestial phenomenon,” or that “they might be a foreign body mechanically devised and controlled.” Three weeks later they concluded that, “This ‘flying saucer’ situation is not all imaginary or seeing too much in some natural phenomenon. Something is really flying around.”

-

I don't see anything wrong with that.