User talk:H0riz0n/god is dead achive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have placed the link on the article now three times; once more within 24 hours will place you in violation of WP:3RR, which could result in a temporray ban. Please make your case and gain consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:EL. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
PS - I'm happy to allow debate, but not in violation of WP policy, as your linking has been. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, you may want to review this when you can. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
What to link to: In Wikipedia, it is possible to link to external websites. Such links are referred to as "external links". Many articles have a small section containing a few external links. There are a few things which should be considered when adding an external link.
  • Is it accessible? yes.
  • Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)? Yes. Provides opportunity to debate the subject matter of the entry.
  • Is it entered correctly? yes.

Please clarify how the wikireason: God debate link is a violation WP:EL?

It contains no content; it's an invitation to create a site, essentially, not a site with already useful material. Additionally, the link exists not to provide information, but to promote a specific site, in violation of policy (this is known as "spamming"). Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Look up the world in the dictonary "content" and it fits it. So yes their is content. Your action is a complete violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA
FACT 1: YOU SAY: "I am a Christian who is committed to evangelical Arminian-Wesleyan theology as well as classical "consensual" ecumenical theology." FACT 2: I am only describing you as you describe yourself. FACT 3: So how is that a violation of [WP:CIV]] and WP:NPA? FACT 4: Not allowing for a debate of the link and repeated deletion is a violation of WP:EL. FACT 5. YOU SAID "11:25, 1 April 2006 KHM03 (→External links - rm link with no content; please make your case on the talk page before adding again)" I did as you requested and I re-added the link and you deleted it another violation ofWP:EL and your harassment of repeated violations threats is a violation of WP:NPA and don’t forget WP:CIV.

KHM03 do not post any further comments on this page doing so will be considered harassment. You scare me. Its just a link and not that important. But the wikireason: God has CONTENT as defined in ANY dictionary! Pick one.

My comment has to do with this discussion. You are putting a link to an argument site on the page, this is inappropriate spamming, and I suggest you not do it again. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
H0riz0n -- I'll be happy to respect your wishes and not post on your talk page in the future - provided, of course, you do not violate Wikipedia policy, as you did (unintentionally, I believe) with your recent "linkspamming". In order for people of diverse beliefs to work together effectively here at Wikipedia, we all have to follow the same set of rules, whether or not we agree with them. I would encourage further reflection on your part and hope that in the future we are able to work together in a constructive manner. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
PS - It's considered "bad form" on Wikipedia to "blank" your talk page. If wish to archive your talk page, that's relatively easy to do. KHM03 (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I did it because the other poster changed my Talk page and was trying to fix it. WHAT ABOUT "do not post any further comments on this page doing so will be considered harassment." Do you not understand. Please respect my request. H0riz0n