User talk:ADM/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎New pledge: unblock no longer on hold
→‎New pledge: accept unblock
Line 19: Line 19:


==New pledge==
==New pledge==
{{Unblock|I solemly pledge 1) to no longer make controversial edits on issues relating to the Vatican and the Jews (and other similar socio-political issues) 2) to no longer edit in an obnoxious newsblog pattern.}}
{{tlx|Unblock|I solemly pledge 1) to no longer make controversial edits on issues relating to the Vatican and the Jews (and other similar socio-political issues) 2) to no longer edit in an obnoxious newsblog pattern.}}

{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
|-
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | [[Image:Yes check.svg|50 px]]
| style="padding: 0.1em" |

'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
<br><br>You get one more chance per [[WP:AGF]]. ''One'', and no more.

''Request handled by:'' [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 23:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
|}


*Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=268971703&oldid=268938406 this comment], JzG is willing to have other admins make the decision. Daniel? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
*Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=268971703&oldid=268938406 this comment], JzG is willing to have other admins make the decision. Daniel? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:47, 6 February 2009

Blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. To contest this block, please email me or place {{unblock|your reason here}} on your page, including an explanation why you feel you should be unblocked.
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).

ADM (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

All I was editing about were recent news topics about Jewish-Christian problems that everyone knows about by now. So I would like if you would unblock, I can maybe send you an e-mail. ADM (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block notice was not terribly informative. But it seems that the blocking administrator, JzG, might reconsider if you could respond appropriately to the concerns expressed at AN and ANI, which I have linked below. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (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.

Note, you can still send the admin that blocked you an email through this. Hope this helps, The Helpful One 08:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns expressed at WP:AN and WP:ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ADM a Single-purpose account; Hate Speech.

In this diff you expressed concern about Reuters, given that it was founded by a Jew. You removed a warning that was left to you about that comment, without giving any response.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive511#User:ADM a Single-purpose account.3F

  • Please consider responding to these complaints. If you believe that you have an answer, make a new unblock request and another admin will consider it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2009 (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).

ADM (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I did not make any definitve claims about Reuters, all I wanted to do was to try and open a discussion or debate about Reuters' take on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, on which I strongly suspect it of being pro-Israel, not because it was founded by a Hebraic person, but rather because it seemed to have a slant during the recent 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. This is the exact same thing that the President of Turkey was saying recently, he is a man of strong conviction. Also see this interesting statement by Tzipora Menache. I am very much used to reading European and Arab papers that are not pro-Israel, this is why I thought Reuters might have a peculiar take on this. I feel that this ban is kind of a thoughtcrime for whoever might want to share different views for the sake of neutrality.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to speculate about the insidious political leanings of others; we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to function as a blog. — kurykh 05:09, 6 February 2009 (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.

New pledge

{{Unblock|I solemly pledge 1) to no longer make controversial edits on issues relating to the Vatican and the Jews (and other similar socio-political issues) 2) to no longer edit in an obnoxious newsblog pattern.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You get one more chance per WP:AGF. One, and no more.

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]