User talk:L'Omnivore Sobriquet

My complaint about being blocked
Friday, 16 December 05

Messieurs,

I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked from Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.

My user name is “L’Omnivore Sobriquet”, and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message 'Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayg. The reason given is: revert sockpuppet'

Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single following line

''You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting articles; that is what your edits consist of. Jay.''

Today, I see to my dismay that a new 24hours blocking has been auto-generated.

I’m writing here to argue my case
By the time of the ‘block’, my contributions to Wikipedia totalled to only… two. One last Sunday, one Wednesday. In no way this can be seen as a basis for a trend. Two occurrences cannot be held as statistical. I argue that my contributions, numbering to only two, simply didn’t “consist of” any behavioural pattern. Mr Jayjg writes that I “appear” … “created solely for the purpose”… based on a total of only two occurrences, hardly a basis for purpose guesses or appearance lectures. The line of Jayjg consists solely of his own guessings on invented trends.

More so, trends and fashions, guessed or not, shouldn’t come into play when it comes to Wikipedia editions or users’ accesses.

Denis Diderot boasted loud enough about it : encyclopaedias are not hair-dressers’ salons. Hurt as any innocent blocked user should be, I acknowledge here challengeable Ancient Régîme ways, péroraisons, and short-lived privilege abuses.

However if explanations for my sole pair of independent editions may help, to erase the wrongful impression of - ’award-winning’ - Jayjg, here they are.

Both related to the file titled “Israel Shamir” (actually, early on Sunday and before creating an account and logging in, I made an edit on American WW2 aircraft production, deleting post-war F-86 Sabre from the list, making a total of 3 contributions in all from my PC, and certainly not ‘revert sockpuppetting’.) Both were reverts. After a lengthy read of the controversies in the correspondent ‘talk’ page, I viewed the introduction paragraph of ‘JohD’ as already demonstrated as superior to the version seemingly endlessly reverted-to by a couple of Wikipedians. Also, the behaviour of these few Wikipedians – Jayjg and Denis Diderot (??!!!) – had been exposed as being on the verge of vandalism, according to Wiki guidelines. My attitude has therefore been that 'the case is closed', that it's all well written and argued about in the talk page. There only remains to Wikipedia to let it show. My ‘comments’ just said that. A logical conclusion of the whole discussion page, as it reads. Therefore reverting was the minimal – yet justified – intervention, in order to let the hopefully virtuous Wikipedia process move on. So please do not be surprised, do not imagine hooliganism, if I simply feel very little need to invent some weak literature of mine and then to pour-in my low-key argumentation in endless talk pages, just to try to re-argue already well stated points. Hence the behaviour of those two first edits. "See talk" could have been a dryer comment for these.

Impressions, however corrected, shouldn't come into argumentation here. But humans always appreciate !

Please 'unblock' me at once.

l'Omnivore Sobriquet

(my IP address is 83.205.136.21)

Unblocked
You've been unblocked. Please repay the favor by making constructive edits to articles and not getting into edit wars for a while. If you stick to that, I don't think anyone will find cause to block you.

Hopefully this has been settled, yours, &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Still blocked ?
at 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC), still blocked... Well, let's wait another 24 hours then... l&#39;Omnivore Sobriquet 21:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you tried to edit before the ban was lifted, then your IP has been autoblocked as well. You can wait for this block to expire or force a change in your IP address if possible. --bbatsell |  &laquo; give me a ring &raquo;  00:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

On Monday 21:21, 02 January 2006 (UTC), STILL BLOCKED l&#39;Omnivore Sobriquet 21:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir article
I'd very much appreciate if you coud find the time to reply to this question. --Denis Diderot 16:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My Sympathies To Your Fight Against the Israel Shamir Vandals
You did a wonderful thing on the Israel Shamir piece, one of the most outrageous, offensive piles of crap on this entire Wikipedia. For one revert, you were outrageously banned by the administrator-vandal, social terrorist and militant Jewish nationalist, Jayjg. Dedirot is alos a militant Jewish nationalist and a hardcore vandal. The execrable Chip Berlet, "anti-racist" activist and social terrorist, is also a hardcore vandal and an ally of militant Jewish nationalists. I also made a major, very lenient edit to the Israel Shamir piece. It was immediately reverted by hypervandal Chip Berlet.

The vandals of Israel Shamir article are the lowest of the low on Wikipedia. I agree with you that the entire article exemplifies profound violation of NPOV, reversion vandalism and Wikipedia administrator abuse in the case of Jayjg. The fact that ONE edit of yours is referred to as an "edit-war" by another administrator-criminal, Asbestos, exemplifies the extreme corruption of Wikipedia by militant Jews and their PC social terrorist allies.

Wikipedia is infected with a cancer deep in its core and the Israel Shamir piece is example #1. I support you 100% and am outraged that you were banned from Wikipedia. Come talk to me on my talk page and let's see if we can fix some of these outrages. The Hamas and "New Antisemitism" articles have already been invaded by people like us and the punks like Jayjg, Diderot, and Chip Berlet have been effectively fought to the draw they deserve. Shamir deserves no worse. Robert Lindsay 06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)