User talk:ADM/Archive 1

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

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)

---

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)

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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

ADM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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 to everyone who might want to share different views.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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'' to everyone who might want to share different views. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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'' to everyone who might want to share different views. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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'' to everyone who might want to share different views. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}