User talk:Tagank
Comments
Depends on the specific comments obviously. L. Ron Hubbard being a major example of when they aren't always accurate. Horrorshowj (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Depends on the comments? How so? What L. Ron Hubbard work are you referring to? What is the source? Your use of the word "obviously" grossly displays your bias and refusal to expand your intellectual horizons. --Veritas, Semper 20:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Shelley Lubben. Thank you. Google videos should not be used as a source for controversial assertions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shelley Lubben. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
"News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used."[1] This means that the Violet Blue source must either be deleted or re-interpreted in order to de-conflict with this policy. Thank you.--Veritas, Semper 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's switched to Reuters. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Shelley Lubben. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please read the policy on civility and refrain from name calling and insults. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Shelly Lubben. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. wL<speak·check> 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Tagank (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The article is effectively under the control of an individual (Horrorshow) who supports the pornography industry. The evidence for his support of that industry are: (1) his or her activities on other web pages that are biased in favor of the pornography industry, (2) he or she had, prior to my alterations on the page, apparently cited a newspaper opinion piece that was written by Violet Blue, a self proclaimed "professional sex educator, lecturer, podcaster, blogger, vlogger, porn/erotica reviewer and machine artist" [1]. This source was changed to an "objective" source, the more mainstream news company Reuters, only after I complained on the Talk Page of the biased Violet Blue piece. Yes, Horrowshow commendably changed that because it was a Wikipedia policy violation; however, it was only changed after I began my activities on the page. There are other pieces of information, not just on Lubben's page, but on others that support the pornography industry, that Horrorshow apparently effectively controls. And so I should not be blocked for this response, in which I attempt to present a more fair biographical article.
Decline reason:
This seems to be an odd way to request lifting a restriction that was placed for personally harassing other editors. Could I suggest you read over our policies at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and try this again? As it is, it would seem that you intend to immediately continue your pattern of disruptive editing. Kuru talk 13:19, 10 December 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.
{{unblock|I have read the policies and vow to change my editing practices in order to abide by those policies.}}
- Your block expired nearly two weeks ago. You should be able to edit now. J.delanoygabsadds 03:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)