User talk:The Blend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Woodstock2010 (talk • contribs • block log • [http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html).  As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Welcome!,

Hello, The Blend, 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}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Figma 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reply to your message on my talk page

Hey The Blend -

Sorry to hear that you are so frustrated about your work here. I, too, hope you don’t lose interest in Wikipedia.

Obviously, the subject of circumcision seems to lend itself to highly polarized viewpoints each with their own set of facts and studies to support their position. As long as reliable sources, properly cited, are used to support the various claims and statements, it seems they can be included.

I’m assuming you’ve been involved with the article anonymously or under another username, since your contribs don’t show any work on the article itself. (And I can’t help but wonder whom you are referring to as “we” when you wrote “we just want to fix the article…” in your message to me?) You probably have done a lot more research on the subject than I have, so I can’t comment much on your specific issues with statements in the article other than to say that I have seen, and can find numerous instances on the web of, circumcision referred to as “surgery”. Would you explain why you think this is “false”? Also, I haven’t found in the article some of the specific quotes you give. For one of them, were you perhaps referring to this: “the journal PLoS Medicine in July, 2006, calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised over the next 10 years, two million new infections could potentially be avoided.[97]” ?

I’ve got a couple of general suggestions. These may be things you’ve tried; as I said I can’t tell much about your involvement from your contribs as The Blend. (I’ve got to insert a disclaimer here that I don’t consider myself a highly experienced editor and have not been involved in any real conflicts here.):

  • Your points are more likely to be heard if you don’t shout (i.e., use all CAPS). Shouting just increases the contentious atmosphere and can cloud reasoning.
  • Make specific suggestions on the article talk page before you insert them into the article. You can even work on things in your own userspace and bring diffs as links to the discussion.
  • Try talking privately with the specific editors/admins involved on their own talk pages.
  • If you’d like to run anything by me, I’d be happy to check for what might be perceived as potential inflammatory tone before you post.
  • There are established avenues for dispute resolution, see WP:DR.
  • Try focusing on another article or task for a while. It’s a great, big wiki-world out there and there are lots of other ways to contribute.

I want everyone’s voice to be heard, including yours. It seems that this topic is very important to you. Sorry if this hasn’t been much help. I’m happy to discuss things further. Figma 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I understand your viewpoint better. How have you tried to work with this in the past? Have you tried talking privately (away from the article) with the admins you named? Have you considered bringing the issue to a dispute resolution forum? Figma 15:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant POV

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Circumcision. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jakew 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Circumcision, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Avi 06:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sources are NOT well documented at all. See the comments on the talk page. -- Avi 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: your request for help

In good faith, I've offered all the help and advice I can think of. In looking over your recent contributions, I find I have to concur with some other editors that at least some of your sources do not meet the reliability criteria. Also, mutilation is not a neutral word and adding it into the introduction of the article seems to me like a provocative act on your part — or did you honestly think it would be a non-controversial change? I ask this sincerely.

I truly wish I knew of a way to help you, The Blend. Pardon me if I'm inaccurate here, but you seem to deeply believe that circumcision is wrong and harms many people; I respect that belief and your right to hold it. In my, admittedly not-as-intensive-as-it-could-be, reading of the article, it seems to address both major viewpoints on the issue, though whether it's well-balanced or not, I haven't determined.

Finally, once again I advise you to look into avenues of dispute resolution if you would like to have this matter addressed by a larger segment of the community. All the best, Figma 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Jakew 21:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

-- Avi 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)