User talk:Slooppouts34

Hi! Welcome to my talkpage

Islam & Sex

As far as I know, Islam highly restricts sex. Even the scope of sexual pleasure between husband and wife is very limited. Before praying, even the husband can't touch his wife. In Islam, sex is only for procreating, and during sex the husband can't touch or see his wife's boobs. Muslim men are not supposed to get as much sexual pleasure as Western men. Also lip-kissing even between husband and wife is not allowed.--Islam Follower (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Your recent editing history at Islam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Slooppouts34 reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Your addition to Talk:Islam has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Hopefully this is clear to you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About your proposal...

... i will not revoke anything, sorry.CallAng222 (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Slooppouts34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yunshui, Indifinite block is too harsh for first-time blocking due to sockpuppetry, when the user in question is not a vandal. Reduce it to one or two weeks block Slooppouts34 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, actually, that's the usual treatment of those that abuse multiple accounts as blatantly as you did. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.