User talk:WassimDoureihi

March 2022

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that in this edit to Hizb ut-Tahrir, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SunDawntalk 08:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Wassim Doureihi I have made is to update the information about the books of Hizb ut Tahrir, as the existing information is very old and inaccurate, and I documented the source above.

Please repeat the amendments, I have made an effort to be correct and documented.

July 2022

Hello, I'm Apaugasma. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hizb ut-Tahrir‎ have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WassimDoureihi. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 13:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

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).

WassimDoureihi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello,

I feel very sad for the unexpected reaction to the article of Hizb ut-Tahrir, I am a regular visitor of Wikipedia seeking trusted information in what is contained in this encyclopedia with useful and correct information.

I never meant to violate Wikipedia's standards and I didn't mean to offend it, I always made sure that my work was according to the rules.

The article of Hizb ut-Tahrir (the old version) has many errors and has broken links. it needs to be fixed, organized and maintained. Therefore, I intended to work on editing it in particular so that the article would take on the character of accuracy and credibility.

It is inconceivable that Wikipedia contains an article with informational and spelling errors and broken links.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global political party that does not adopt violent (armed) actions and its work is well known as an intellectual struggle and a political struggle. Because of this, it is natural to have supporters and opponents, it is expected for some countries to ban it while others allows it, even though those who ban the Hizb violates the democratic values they advocate for, one of the pillars of which is freedom of thought. Therefore, you may find many sources from the official websites of Hizb ut-Tahrir, with more sources than sites that have nothing to do with Hizb ut-Tahrir. Relying only on 3rd-party sources will not give credibility and accuracy to the article in a case like Hizb ut-Tahrir, which many regimes in the world and other opponents of it are trying to distort its image and highlight it as a terrorist group and so on. It is not fair to judge Hizb ut-Tahrir through sources who oppose or hate Hizb ut-Tahrir.

However, I do not mean to defend Hizb ut-Tahrir, but I investigated the accuracy of the ideas presented, whether against the party or in support of it.

The fact that some editors returned the article to a very old version, complaining about me, and banning my account indefinitely, is unfair to me and to the article. even though I edited it objectively, honestly and sincerity. Many of the changes were archiving or formatting links correctly, and making many classifications that lead to articles in the Wikipedia itself.

In conclusion, I hope you be fair with me and give me a chance to unblock my account, so I can resume my edits according to Wikipedia standards. Many of the edits your reverted have good technical things and archive links .. I am ready to address some controversial issues that may appear as biased or promotional, thank you. WassimDoureihi (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC) WassimDoureihi (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You shouldn't come to Wikipedia for "trusted information" as Wikipedia is not a reliable source; there are many reasons the information presented could be inaccurate. Wikipedia requires independent (third party) reliable sources so readers can examine them to determine their accuracy and judge them for themselves. If a topic does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it will not merit a Wikipedia article. If you just want to tell the world about this group, you should use social media or other forum with less stringent requirements. In any event, you are blocked for sockpuppetry, but do not discuss this. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2022 (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.