User talk:In two minutes

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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).

In two minutes (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

blocked "In two minutes (Talk

Decline reason:

Unblock declined. No. — MBisanz talk 01:20, 11 September 2008 (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.

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).

In two minutes (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Please i´ll not edit rhe 9/11 and related articles

Decline reason:

You must have known that this was unacceptable when you chose to do it. Wikipedia doesn't need more editors pushing their own opinions into encyclopedia articles. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:35, 11 September 2008 (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.

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).

In two minutes (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Those are not my own opinions as you can see here: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/NR/rdonlyres/9C9973A4-D63F-48F3-A06E-D1E33A6F4143/2843/200412335TerrorattackenmotWorldTradeCenter.pdf but i will stop editing those articles if the editors think those opinion are "biased")

Decline reason:

Posting the opinions of others, backed by dubious sources at best, is one thing - and might be excusable as inexperience. But moving War on Terrorism to "Terrorism on Terrorism" is, quite frankly, an incredible piece of bad faith, POV, vandalism, and it is clear from your contributions (particularly this, but also this) that you have no interest whatsoever in contributing productively. For all that, your timing was particularly unfortunate. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:39, 11 September 2008 (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.


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).

In two minutes (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

dubious source? even the official version is mentioned in there (of course not the one from the usa), it seems that the article is biased but those who admin the wiki are biased too so any edit in other way is vandalism

Decline reason:

Abuse of the unblock template; page protected. —  Sandstein  14:13, 11 September 2008 (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.

In this context, yes. It is unclear that a Swedish public health report would be more persuasive than all of the myriad sources already existing at War on Terrorism, and it certainly does not justify a page move. Besides, near as I can tell, the source you cite is an overview of the incident, not a discussion of United States foreign policy. And, to top it off, you didn't cite it when doing the move. I'm seeing multiple very serious problems here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]