User talk:Pornhistorian

August 2010

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Pornhistorian, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

---

Requested username:

Pornhistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

You must specify a different username— Exploding Boy (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why Exploding Boy? You have not heard my reasons You decided while I was typing my argument —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornhistorian (talk • contribs)

Your reasons are supposed to go in your unblock request. If you want to argue that Pornhistorian meets our username guidelines, then you need to use the {{unblock|Your reason here}} unblock request, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing is the guidelines just say to put unblock and the username. Now tell me what paragraph says the username is not a permitted one!

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).

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

---

Request reason:

There are no censored words - porn is not an objectionable word and this account is to be used for writing on the history of pornography so it fits what it does

Decline reason:

See comments below from Ioeth  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:14, 26 August 2010 (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.

Hard to argue with this. Why is "porn historian" objectionable, any more than, say, "sex historian" or "really bad joke historian"? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to discuss that with the blocking admin, User:Ioeth. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks jpgordon. I need it back quickly so I can get my article out of the sandbox and out it back where exploding boy deleted it before I had completed the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornhistorian (talk • contribs)

The article you created is a separate issue from your user name. It was deleted because we already have an article on that topic, which you can find at Internet pornography. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You might also note that this is not an editable page and that history is a subsection and is hardly authorative - this was going to be something much more detailed with extensive references but as you deleted it immediately without any discussion or a hang on appeal or anything else then it is hard to show this.

I think there is something about not biting newbies in the guides for administrators (not that I am a newbie this is a sock puppet but for good reason considering the subject and my real name and affiliations!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornhistorian (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're not a newbie then you should know to sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes (~) at the end.

You should also know that Internet pornography is semi-protected, which means that you can edit it if your account is four days old and has 10 edits. Before you reach that threshold, you can request edits on the talk page.

And you should also know that what we do first is expand existing articles and then, if there's a need, create subarticles. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if this was perceived as bitey. Usernames that include terms like "historian", "scientist" and "doctor" are frequently used in content disputes to further the position of one point of view over another by asserting some sort of authority over the content. This, coupled with the (now admitted) fact that this is a single-purpose account that was repeatedly adding an original research article, is what made me decide to issue a username softblock. You can request an unblock to change your username, if you like, but I would encourage you to just create a new username outright, and take Exploding Boy's advice. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is bitey to indefinitely block an account without any comment like oh historian is bad news. Impolite would perhaps better describe it. I was amazed that you could delete it as original research when it had two sentences and if you can make a judgement based on that you are a cleverer man than I am. I added the article twice not many times as I was editing it during the deletes. It is no more original research than the Internet Pornography article which has no citations. This was going to at least be cited if you had waited for me to finish todays edits.

Surely everyone has a single purpose of making contributions - this is not single purpose account for this article, it is for history of porn in general which is a very large subject and can keep me busy contributing for life. I prefer to write in this sphere separately to other contributions as it has too much social stigma which is sad but true.

I have read Exploding Boys advice and his comment pages from other contributors so I think I am very happy in not taking it thank you. Pornhistorian (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If historian is so problematic what about? {{unblock-un|porndetective}}

Please understand that your username and the article you created are two separate issues.

With respect to the first issue, your username, there are legitimate reasons for using a sockpuppet account, and for the record I don't find your name problematic. I declined your unblock request procedurally because you (a) were not contesting being blocked because of your allegedly problematic username (which would have required a different unblock template) and (b) you were making an "unblock to change username" request using the same username under which you were blocked. Since you're blocked, I've relisted your name at UAA and that should bring some more input on that matter.

With respect to the second issue, the article you created, it was not deleted as original research. It was first proposed for deletion by WikiDan61 as an "Unsourced essay," but it was first deleted by Airplaneman under category A10: "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic." You recreated the article and it was again proposed for deletion as an unsourced essay, this time by Pdcook. I then deleted it, again under category A10. The reason was explained to you: because we already have an article on the topic, titled Internet pornography.

As you say, everyone is encouraged to make contributions. There are restrictions on how you may make them, however. Since we already have an existing article on the topic, in which the section you proposed to write on is small and undeveloped, you should be contributing to the existing article. If it becomes clear that there is so much important, encyclopedic information on a subtopic of an article, then it can be created as a stand-alone page. If you would rather present something fully formed, then you can always work on something offline or in your user space, and then seek input from other users on whether it's appropriate for a stand-alone article. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually what you saw was me reminding myself about how to write pages and also saving while writing so that I did not lose content. You had actually seen almost nothing of the complete article. There needs to be sections on Rimm and legislation the CDA etc. So an awaful lot more which is not really like the existing content Internet Pornography. Also I wanted to write an article then while I had time and inspiration and not having to wait four days and make 10 edits. Removing the article and then blocking the username annoyed me because it means I am typing and being prevented from completing what I was doing, so I was trying to deal with many things all at once. I got a copy in the sandbox so that is fine.

My error was not reading the unblock instructions carefully as I was in a hurry and so I typed the wrong unblock - that for name change. I then wanted to add reasons to my talk but the unblocking was refused while I was typing my reasons and so they are lost to the ether. To be honest it is irrelevant now as all has been resolved. I have made a particular point on my user page that while I have the name historian I am definitely an interested amateur and in no way do I seek to be authoritative. I will be fighting hard for a NPOV in the pornography articles as this is important to me as is all net neutrality. Pornhistorian (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Beeblebrox - I will try not to let you down. Pornhistorian (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

Im guessing that this is something youre planning to write in the mainspace of Wikipedia, perhaps on Internet pornography. And it looks like a good start, but I have to wonder, was there really no commercial porn websites before 1996? If so, that claim can't be backed up just by linking to the site itself. —Soap— 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Soap -I am checking all my books as the problem is the webarchive only goes back to 1996 so before then a precise date is hard to find. 1994 was the first legislation and the Rimm incident which needs documenting. Pornhistorian (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Wikipedian admins are derps, Pornhistorian!

I came here to tell you to remember to use the HTML tag /ol at the end of li tagged lists because everyone below you posting in the talk page will be indented and came across the barrage of idiocy you seem to be facing.

As a member of the dispute resolution team, I cannot assist you, but if the admins reviewing this matter would be willing to take extrinsic materials into account; This is absurd, I would not in any way find this users name to be in breach--we have articles relating to porn, and being a historian of that field is a common sense and logical extrapolation thereof--it's not like his username is Pornlover or something intentionally idiotic.

It is quite clear that he contributes to articles relating to the history of adult entertainment, and if common sense and a primary-school level comprehension of English were to prevail he would not be banned.

Pornhistorian, you are not alone. Many (presently in excess of 150,000 editors) are arbitrarily and long term banned. Google is your friend, it'll provide you with resources and entire communities dealing with the nature of the hasteful banhammer of Wikipedia. Use it to your advantage where possible, you never know, an admin who is adept in the English language may read it and understand your case! BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

... and this is why you shouldn't use a university network that uses cached copies of websites. I just forced a refresh because my post above wasn't displaying and suddenly another half a bloody page appeared showing finally logic prevailed! Welcome back Pornhistorian, ignore my drivel above, I was nerd raging because the old format copy we had cached was your page while you were STILL banned and being dicked around by ego tripping admins with bad English skills! BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)