User talk:DisHonestreporting
You are violating the WP:NOR policy. Rather than continuing to do so with your reverts, please respond here: Talk:Honest Reporting#"Hostile media effect". Jayjg(talk) 15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Your username[edit]
I am concerned that your user name, coupled with your editing habits, my be a problem. Our naming guidelines state that “Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem.” Since you edit exclusively to criticize the organization which your user name directly attacks, believe it is inappropriate. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Unblock Request[edit]
DisHonestreporting (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block seems unreasonable since my recent edits were to add a requested citation, as well as references from the published research literature on the subject of perceptions of media bias and a quote from a published journal (the American Journalism Review) about HonestReporting. There seems to be slightly odd situation here that we have some editors determined to remove criticism related to the topic, but have no problem with a section titled 'Endorsements'. Based on this, clearly there is a view that opinions on the topic are acceptable, which I quite agree with, but only positive opinions it seems. Hence, we have an 'endorsement' from an ex-politician (taken directly from the HonestReporting web-site! with no other citation), but the removal of references to published scholary research and quotes from a journalism journal specifically about HonestReporting. The 'Criticisms' section has now been removed completely, leaving the page looking more like a promotion for HonestReporting than an encyclopaedia article about HonestReporting. I've sent an email to Nakon but have recieved no reply. It was only a few days ago, so if I'm being overly impatient please ignore this unblock request.
Decline reason:
Per above comment, and past experience with similar usernames, your username is inherently disruptive over and above your editing practices. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2008 (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.
- Daniel, thanks for your input, but I was asking for an unblock on the WP:SPA block, not on the issue Canadian monkey raises above, which is not the reason for the block. Though it is worth noting that your reason "inherently disruptive" is in direct contradiction to the naming guidelines which state that this is "not explicitly prohibited". So there needs to be a specific reason, not just the use of the name.DisHonestreporting (talk)
DisHonestreporting (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The previous review did not address the reason given for the block. Now the page in question that I edited is flagged - "This article does not cite any references or sources." My last edits that lead to my blocking were doing just this - adding references and sources. And they were from verifiable and reliable sources - published research in international journals and the American Journalism Review. Yet the reason given for the block was that I was "disruptive" !
Decline reason:
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.
Calling yourself "DisHonestreporting" and then only editing the Honest Reporting article gives other editors in the Wikipedia community who you are meant to collaborating with the impression that you are nothing more than a single-purpose account with the sole purpose of "character assassination" and to deliberately antagonize those trying to keep the article fair and balanced in line with our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Perhaps if you request a change in username to something that identifies you as an individual and not merely an agenda and propose some other unrelated topics in which to diversify your contributions then other administrators may be a bit more sympathetic to your appeal for unblocking. Some administrators like myself who review CAT:RFU prefer to stay thirty feet away from editors who seem combative when reviewing blocks. -- Netsnipe ► 14:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Though SPAs are not prohibited, and my edits were in fact giving the article a NPOV, as it's currently little more than a cut and paste from the organisations own website. I'll request a name change (once I figure out how) and I'll broaden my editing horizons. Thanks for your advice.DisHonestreporting (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
DisHonestreporting (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'd like to change my username as suggested on previous request and then demonstrate my more varied editing interests.
Decline reason:
This request is inadequate. It does not address the reason for your block or the assessment of your block by the previous reviewers. — Sandstein 11:07, 16 May 2008 (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.
- This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.
Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.
If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:
- Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
- At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
- Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. Keep in mind, though, that creating a new account is much faster and easier.