Exiles800
I can confirm some of these statements if you need help as I can provide information that was told to me first hand to me by my friend,but please be careful as this is a very sensitive issue.Mark Pagliaro 19:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Death of Jimi Hendrix edit
Please take your concerns about the disputed specifics to Death of Jimi Hendrix. I'm sure there we can work out a decent compromise with all interested parties that also gives due-weight to the several equally unprovable and highly disputed theories about what happened that night. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I must protest your labeling the evidence behind Jimi's murder as being "equally unprovable" and "highly disputed". It indicates a bias by the editor towards the material. The problem here is that the method of using reliable sources defaults to Monika Dannemann's official story as told to the British investigation. Indeed that main Jimi Hendrix Death entry reflects Monika's official story as related through numerous authors. However this doesn't refute the fact that other credible authors who were not cited in the Hendrix Death entry have a more credible version of Jimi's death than Monika. This is gotten around by referencing numerous authors who have repeated Monika's story in their works, which is a sort of laundering of Monika's false version. However the information I spoke of in those other publications is much more accurate and credibly refutes Monika's version. Therefore to say those other sources are "equally unprovable" is not accurate and comprises a somewhat questionable position by the editor simply because those other sources have proven to be more 'reliable' and backed by numerous witnesses besides the sole word of Monika. Where we credibly are here is those other publications have reasonably shown Monika's version to be false. This is further reinforced by those sources not coming forward to clarify their evidence, as well as the British government's disinterest in following-through on it. This is seriously incriminating behavior by both parties that suggests something being hidden. Monika herself ended-up dead. Yet, with all this happening we view a Hendrix Death entry that is still based on Monika's version that is now provably the less reliable source and is therefore given undue weight by technical form. In short those other "theories" have passed the test of being 'evidence' and should stand before Monika's thoroughly-discredited version. Those other sources have numerous witnesses. The current Death entry relies mostly on completely-discredited Monika Dannemann for its main timeline framework. - By the way, thanks for the new Death article. It should help establish the truth behind Jimi's death. I know this isn't easy. Exiles800 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Per: "I must protest your labeling the evidence behind Jimi's murder as being "equally unprovable" and "highly disputed". Please read WP:VERIFY, which states: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I'll do my best over time to edit the "Death" article to reflect all sides if possible, but please remember, its a work in progress. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2012 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. AGK [•] 11:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)- Administrators: If Exiles800 appeals my block, please be aware that the defamatory edits have been suppressed (as a result of ticket 2012122010006081). AGK [•] 11:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Protip: if you've been blocked for defamation, don't post the defamatory material in your unblock request. I've revoked talk page access. If you would like to appeal this block, you may use the Unblock Ticket Request System here. Danger High voltage! 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Exiles800 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not aware the 'Talk' page followed such strict rules on defamation. If you follow my Wikipedia history I never actually edited any main page article because of my caution over rules. I would like to say in my own favor that my previous Hendrix 'Talk' page issues were actually followed-through on and helped establish the current version of the page. Before I was blocked I entered issues about certain sources being the more reliable source for the subject. The main page editor McGabe said "Be patient it is a work in progress." I believe my 'Talk' input was helpful in establishing a Wikipedia "Death Of Jimi Hendrix" article. Also, I see since my banning that my recommended books and sources have now become the dominant references on the Death Of Jimi Hendrix page. I'm glad and I'd like to say in my favor that I have proven myself useful by helping improve the quailty of that article. To show my further usefulness I noticed the current article cites a blood alcohol level from Dr Teare of 100mg per 100ml. Let me preface this by saying I consider myself an expert on this subject and have been researching it for several years. I am currently in contact with forensic experts Dr Cyril Wecht and Dr Michael Baden. I am also in possession of the London Coroner's Office autopsy data sheets for Jimi Hendrix. The 100mg per 100ml entry in the article is erroneous. The actual autopsy measurement of Jimi's blood alcohol level was only 5mg per 100ml. Dr Teare said in the autopsy records that he was interpolating an estimated 100mg per 100ml blood alcohol level at the time of pill ingestion hours before death, however the actual reading was only 5mg per 100ml. I could go on to elaborate what was wrong with Dr Teare's interpolation, but it is too detailed and isn't relevant to this matter. In any case the present entry of 100mgs is factually incorrect and gives the wrong impression. If I am unblocked I can continue to be useful with improvements like the above. I will take more care about defamatory remarks as well. Exiles800 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You wrote this whole long request, and only the very last sentence actually has anything to do with why you were blocked. As an oversighter myself, I am able to see what you did to get blocked, and you need to be taking it a lot more seriously if you expect to be allowed to return to editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2013 (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.
Exiles800 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If possible I would like a review of the violation. The blocking administrator entered a violation of the "biographies of living persons policy." The person I was accused of defaming, Michael Jeffery, has been deceased since 1973. Also, I feel the unblock request above does satisfy point #2 in the unblocking request guidelines: "That the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead" I believe the denied request above does all three sincerely. I would also like to point out that my unblock request contains a factual correction of existing incorrect information presently in the article I cited. In doing this I believe I have shown valid evidence of intending to contribute and help improve content. I posit this satisfies the written rule for unblock request guidelines as stated in the guidelines themselves. Exiles800 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Any unblock request that relates to oversighted edits cannot be appealed using this format, as "passing admins" cannot unblock you. You must contact WP:BASC (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:23, 31 May 2013 (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.
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <Exiles800> edit
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- [[User:<Exiles800>|<Exiles800>]] ([[User talk:<Exiles800>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Exiles800>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Exiles800>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<Exiles800>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<Exiles800>|block user]] · block log) – Exiles800 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- <Wikipedia:Blocking policy
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- [[User:<AGK>|<AGK>]] ([[User talk:<AGK>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<AGK>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<AGK>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<AGK>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<AGK>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<AGK>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<AGK>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<AGK>|RfA]])
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by <Exiles800> edit
<The alleged defamed person Michael Jeffery is deceased March 1973 and therefore does not constitute a "Living Person" as per Wikipedia Biographies of Living Persons policy. Therefore reason for blocking is not valid by Wikipedia rules.>
Statement by <AGK> edit
Statement by (involved editor 1) edit
Statement by (involved editor 2) edit
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <Exiles800> edit
Result of the appeal by <Exiles800> edit
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.