User talk:Donempirer
October 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Donempirer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear HJ Mitchell, As is clearly stated by the Wikipedia rules, a journalist is a public figure responsible for all his/her actions. If such actions potentially lead to encouraging violence that is against the international law which is repsected by Wikipedia. The cases reported above fail into this category. This is not about personal biases or likes. This is about serious professional misconduct which should be treated as such. The cases documented in the Wikipedia entries are supported by verifiable links, and thus you are acting against the Wikipedia rules while trying to remove these entries. Please stop other Wikipedia editors from disrespect to the whole idea of Wikipedia, which they show when blocking my edits because they just do not like them. As clearly stated above, the entries about journalist's professional misconduct supported by verifiable links are not just "views", and should be considered as facts supported by links, not as views Donempirer (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The link provided is of a youtube video of reporting the Israel - Palestine conflict. The link does not verify that the reporting is biased. In this context, I am declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2015 (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.
Donempirer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear PhilKnight, Dear HJ Mitchell, The video from youtube mentioned by PhilKnight is authentic to the corresponding Sky News report, and thus is both a verifiable and trustworthy source from the point of view of Wikipedia. This video clearly proves the professional misconduct by the journalist (not just "bias", but a serious misconduct according to both the UK and USA law), because the journalist is standing among the people who are throwing stones into civilians and are thus violating the law. The journalist (put aside all her other wrongdoings recorder by this video) is encouraging the violence and killings as represented by putting herself among those people throwing stones and pretending that their behavior is normal. Again, we are not talking about "likes" or "dislikes", we are talking about a misconduct (violation of the local and international law) by the journalist who takes part in the illegal terrorist attack. Let us put aside the newly created page, which indeed did not contain enough material (yet) and thus could not be judged. However, concerning the page Sherine Tadros , I insist on including my entries, based on the Wikipedia rules and my arguments above. Looking forward to your reply. Donempirer (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unless you have reliable sources assessing that situation, your are violating our policy on sourcing for biographies of living persons. This seems like a single purpose advocacy account, and it is very unlikely you will be unblocked without some re-assessment of your approach. Kuru (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2015 (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.
Donempirer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Kuku, Thank you for your reply. It remains clear that Wikipedia administrators should return the last entry of the user Donempirer in the page [redacted], because it satisfies all general Wikipedia rules including the Wikipedia policy on sourcing for biographies of living persons. In particular, the link provided at the page [redacted] was leading to a VERIFIABLE video from Sky News showing the [redacted]. In the case if Wikipedia administrators fail to include this edit in the page [redacted], this will be considered as a violation of the Wikipedia neutrality policy. Thank you for your understanding.Donempirer (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Due to your persistence on violating WP:BLP even in your unblock requests, your ability to do that has been revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2015 (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.