User talk:2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7

February 2016

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Christian apologetics, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Christian apologetics. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. DVdm (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a source. this entire wiki page is a joke.

have you ever tried to debate with a Christian apologist. I have many times. maybe you are sympathetic to this article and refuse anyone to state an opposing view. an honest one at that.

Even if agree 100% with what you wrote, a blog is not a reliable source. You really need a solid, preferably scholar, source for this. You have an oppotunity to do something useful here. Try not not spoil it. - DVdm (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Christian apologetics with this edit. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how is rational wiki inappropriate it is in fact more appropriate than this pile of BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2016‎ 2a02:c7d:561e:fa00:952:a639:3f33:c0f7 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

See wp:ELNO item 12. - DVdm (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and how exactly //bethinking.org// a reliable source nit's a blog!!

please stop deleting my reference to rational wiki. you are being dishonest also. are you a Christian? because this wiki page is harmful and dishonest. maybe whoever wrote it should do their research properly. I know how you guys think you are god and that everything in a wiki page is the absolute truth. well I'm sorry to this page is full of nonsense. if you ban me from this page you are supporting the dishonest entries made by apologists. if I were a wiki admin I would ban you for not allowing an opposing view.

This is your last warning; the next time you harm Wikipedia, as you did at Christian apologetics with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. DVdm (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Christian apologetics. Eteethan(talk) 20:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

yes mr hitler. you support this dishonest page. this is your last warning. delete the bethinks.org reference or I will report you to the real admin not the minions. how can I vandalize a page that is full of nonsense!! please tell me how this site is credible? http://bethink.org/ but yo allow it on this page as a credible source.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my entry to the rational wiki apologetics page was deleted for no reason, apologetics is not based on science evidence or logic. the monitor consistently removed this reference but continues to allow reference to other biased and unsupported sites such as //bethinking/org// apologetics isn't based on science or reason. it's based on theology and nothing else. 2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=my entry to the rational wiki apologetics page was deleted for no reason, apologetics is not based on science evidence or logic. the monitor consistently removed this reference but continues to allow reference to other biased and unsupported sites such as //bethinking/org// apologetics isn't based on science or reason. it's based on theology and nothing else. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7|2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7#top|talk]]) 21:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=my entry to the rational wiki apologetics page was deleted for no reason, apologetics is not based on science evidence or logic. the monitor consistently removed this reference but continues to allow reference to other biased and unsupported sites such as //bethinking/org// apologetics isn't based on science or reason. it's based on theology and nothing else. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7|2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7#top|talk]]) 21:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=my entry to the rational wiki apologetics page was deleted for no reason, apologetics is not based on science evidence or logic. the monitor consistently removed this reference but continues to allow reference to other biased and unsupported sites such as //bethinking/org// apologetics isn't based on science or reason. it's based on theology and nothing else. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7|2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7#top|talk]]) 21:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.

Note: I told you that you had an opportunity here, and warned you not to spoil it. You could have had opened a polite discussion on the article talk page, discussing the problems with the article, making your case, perhaps with some of the possibly relevant, reliable sources of the rational wiki. But you spoiled it. - DVdm (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the rational wiki page. this wiki page is already spoiled, if you think that bethinking.org is a credible source and not rational wiki you need help.

why are wiki monitors all the same. they are control freaks. no wonder wiki has such a bad reputation and it's staff are hated.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.