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)[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 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 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. — kur ykh 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]

Per this comment, JzG is willing to have other admins make the decision. Daniel? EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President of Turkey's comments about Israel

Well, I was disappointed to read about the reasons for your being blocked but hopefully you now understand Wikipedia's policies regarding this kind of behavior. I'm fairly confident that the Talk Page of the Reuters article was not the place for your comment. However, to the extent that the President of Turkey has commented on this topic, those comments are somewhat encyclopedic and could be added somewhere in Wikipedia if they haven't been documented yet. If you want help in this regard, let me know and I'll research this with you. --Richard (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good feeling that Reuters also played a strong role during the Mortara Affair, where it took the side of the groups opposing the papacy of Pius IX. The comparison between the Mortara affair and the Williamson affair is striking, it takes us back about 150 years in the past. ADM (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East-West Schism

Now, the real reason I came over here was to ask for your help in reviewing this section. Through our interaction on List of Christian heresies, I get the sense that you know a fair amount about Catholic theology. I have been working with a pair of editors who are knowledgeable in representing Orthodox criticisms of Catholic theology. They claim that they just want to represent the Orthodox side and want the Catholic side to be represented as well. I do not have the impression that Catholic theologians "do battle" with Orthodox theologians. AFAIK, Catholic theologians don't spend much effort criticizing Orthodox theology. The "official" story from the Catholics is that the Orthodox are not heretics but schismatics and that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with their theology, at least not to the point of being heretical although some variations of Orthodox theology are considered heretical. Do you have any thoughts on this?

--Richard (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The theological differences have a part of theology, a part of philosophy and a part of politics. The most notable area of difference is quite likely that of philosophy, not theology, where there is a vast disagreement on substance theory for instance. The political aspect is merely a logical consequence of this. To have a better grasp of some of the philosophical issues underlying this, a good thing would be to look at post-modernism and phenomenology, which ironically tend to explain from a modern perspective some of the contentious topics discussed here. ADM (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Message

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]