User talk:Porches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Porches, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Natalie 17:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - are you only removing things from external links sections, or are you also removing references? Natalie 18:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, without having done any research on the subjects themselves, religion not being my area of expertise, I can definitely say that you are correct to be removing any external links to blogs, unless they are in an article about the writer of the blog. For example, your removal of blogs from the external links section of apostasy is correct.
As references, blogs are very occasionally acceptable. For example, if a notable blogger commented on a particular phenomenon, that comment or quote might be acceptable, and the blog would of course be the reference. I would say that if a blog has a Wikipedia article, than it mght be notable enough to be quoted or referenced in some other article. You are correct in asserting that no one has to prove that the blogs are factually incorrect for them to be considered poor sources. Generally, when it comes to sourcing, the burden of proof is considered to be on the person who wants to add the information rather than anyone removing it. Natalie 18:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Is the dispute centered on a particular article or a particular site, or is it kind of all over? Natalie 19:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the very first page of the website proclaims a desire to " unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion", this is obviously an extremist site. It also fits into several of the "cautions" listed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources, so I think you are absolutely correct that this is an unacceptable source.
If there is a centralized discussion of this anywhere, such as an article talk page, continuing that discussion would probably be best. If there isn't a centralized discussion, and you and this editor are fighting this out through user talk pages, bringing it to an article talk page might be helpful. I can leave a note on their talk page, if you like, but getting more people involved would be good. Natalie 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Targeman 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this account. Tom Harrison Talk 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Why am I blocked?"

Decline reason: "discussion below leaves little doubt. You can contact mail:Unblock-en-l with more evidences if you wish further review. -- lucasbfr talk 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I blocked you for using a puppet account to evade your ban. Tom Harrison Talk 21:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be someone else's ban. Porches 21:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe you. Tom Harrison Talk 21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Then how do you conclude him/her and I are the same? Porches 21:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious to anyone who has examined your edits and behavior. Your unblock request is up, and you can have the last word. Tom Harrison Talk 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not obvious. Please elaborate. An editor follows me around to several articles and you block me. It doesn't make sense. Porches 21:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand, it's highly unusual for a "new" editor to immediately leap into revert warring across several articles, and to display such a familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines as you have -- I suggest you provide a credible explanation for that. On the other hand, who is this user allegedly a sockpuppet of? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I edited without a username before. Porches 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide any examples? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I will not give out my IP address unless I can do it in private. Porches 21:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Understandable; you could contact mail:Unblock-en-l if you like. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This is probably His excellency again. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Follow this edit. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 22:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, thats him, an IP from Virginia. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)