Hello, Crimsoncorvid, 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 messages on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You asked a question at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Question about article perspective. I am providing my answer here to avoid setting a precedent whereby people assume it is ok to discuss male/female circumcision at the FGM talk page. If you would like to reply, you may want to do so here (on your talk page) as I am likely to see it without needing a prompt.
The problem at circumcision is that a lot of new editors turn up with a strong idea of what they want to do, but little idea of the procedures that apply at Wikipedia. They then wonder why their edits are reverted, and incorrectly conclude that it is because some kind of advocate edits that page. Anyone wanting to contribute to Wikipedia needs to start slowly and spend time working on minor and non-contentious issues first. Read the policies and guidelines (start at WP:5P). While various things could be said to answer your question, the result would not really address the fundamental issue that is likely to be on the mind of most new editors who arrive at the other article. Wikipedia is not a forum where we should discuss whether there is a fundamental difference between male and female circumcision, but anyone who thinks there is no such distinction should study File:Type IV circumcision.jpg (NSFW, and which refers to "Type IV" based on an old classification system, whereas the article uses the WHO system where it would be described at "Type III"). A glance at that image shows there is a fundamental difference between at least some forms of male and female circumcision. Regardless of whether one agrees with that point of view, the fact is that multiple reliable sources support the opinion. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Crimsoncorvid, have you ever edited Wikipedia before under another username, or have you edited significantly before as an IP? Thanks.
Zad
68
12:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, regarding
this edit, be careful about personal attacks.
WP:BLP applies to every edit on every Wikipedia page. Labeling certain living individuals as propagandists is very questionable.
Zad
68
00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Crimsoncorvid, while we're on Boyle & Hill, can you explain something:
This seems inconsistent because the
Boyle & Hill article declares that Boyle and Hill are both principals at "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" and they have their own website that could equally be termed an "anti-circumcision propaganda website" (to use your own wording). And actually the same could be said for Sorrells et al. 2007 you offered in
this edit, as that study's principals are involved in NOCIRC, another group that could equally be said to provide "anti-circumcision propaganda". Can you explain the apparent inconsistency in the application of your principle here?
Zad
68
18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Crimsoncorvid, I want to draw your attention to an important policy and guideline on Wikipedia: WP:NPA and WP:TPYES. Both of them highlight this sentence:
Comment on content, not on the contributor.
Article Talk: pages should be used only for the purpose of discussing article content, not other editors. A number of your recent comments (for example, this one), have been focused to a great extent on contributors, not content. I believe you've been told this before, but I want to emphasize this quite strongly: do not use article Talk: page to discuss other editors. If you have an issue with another editor's behavior, there are places to bring that up; you can create a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, or if you have a specific incident you feel requires administrative attention, you can raise it at WP:AN/I. Going forward, I expect you to use these venues to discuss behavioral issues, and refrain from commenting about other editors on article Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You are indefinitely, but not permanently, blocked, having reviewed your conduct over the last six months plus.
There is a rather severe conflict between your true-believer status on the circumcision question and Wikipedia's standards of behavior, which both prohibit attempts to use Wikipedia as a venue to fight external real-world political or social battles (Wikipedia exists to neutrally report, not advocate) and requires that editors work constructively together to find consensus on what neutral coverage and relevant reliable sources are for all sides. You have violated every core principle of the encyclopedia and community to some degree and announced your intention to continue doing so.
I am not condemning you to a permanent ban from Wikipedia, but you are blocked with no end date. I have used the block tag "disruptive editing" but several others might apply.
You may appeal this and any administrator can unblock you (without contacting me first, though I would appreciate a notification if anyone does and a noticeboard post if you do). However, please review our core values and relevant policy for whether you have any ability to work constructively within the Wikipedia framework or not. You appear to have declared that you cannot and will not. That is not acceptable.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Hello, Crimsoncorvid, 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 messages on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You asked a question at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Question about article perspective. I am providing my answer here to avoid setting a precedent whereby people assume it is ok to discuss male/female circumcision at the FGM talk page. If you would like to reply, you may want to do so here (on your talk page) as I am likely to see it without needing a prompt.
The problem at circumcision is that a lot of new editors turn up with a strong idea of what they want to do, but little idea of the procedures that apply at Wikipedia. They then wonder why their edits are reverted, and incorrectly conclude that it is because some kind of advocate edits that page. Anyone wanting to contribute to Wikipedia needs to start slowly and spend time working on minor and non-contentious issues first. Read the policies and guidelines (start at WP:5P). While various things could be said to answer your question, the result would not really address the fundamental issue that is likely to be on the mind of most new editors who arrive at the other article. Wikipedia is not a forum where we should discuss whether there is a fundamental difference between male and female circumcision, but anyone who thinks there is no such distinction should study File:Type IV circumcision.jpg (NSFW, and which refers to "Type IV" based on an old classification system, whereas the article uses the WHO system where it would be described at "Type III"). A glance at that image shows there is a fundamental difference between at least some forms of male and female circumcision. Regardless of whether one agrees with that point of view, the fact is that multiple reliable sources support the opinion. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Crimsoncorvid, have you ever edited Wikipedia before under another username, or have you edited significantly before as an IP? Thanks.
Zad
68
12:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, regarding
this edit, be careful about personal attacks.
WP:BLP applies to every edit on every Wikipedia page. Labeling certain living individuals as propagandists is very questionable.
Zad
68
00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Crimsoncorvid, while we're on Boyle & Hill, can you explain something:
This seems inconsistent because the
Boyle & Hill article declares that Boyle and Hill are both principals at "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" and they have their own website that could equally be termed an "anti-circumcision propaganda website" (to use your own wording). And actually the same could be said for Sorrells et al. 2007 you offered in
this edit, as that study's principals are involved in NOCIRC, another group that could equally be said to provide "anti-circumcision propaganda". Can you explain the apparent inconsistency in the application of your principle here?
Zad
68
18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Crimsoncorvid, I want to draw your attention to an important policy and guideline on Wikipedia: WP:NPA and WP:TPYES. Both of them highlight this sentence:
Comment on content, not on the contributor.
Article Talk: pages should be used only for the purpose of discussing article content, not other editors. A number of your recent comments (for example, this one), have been focused to a great extent on contributors, not content. I believe you've been told this before, but I want to emphasize this quite strongly: do not use article Talk: page to discuss other editors. If you have an issue with another editor's behavior, there are places to bring that up; you can create a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, or if you have a specific incident you feel requires administrative attention, you can raise it at WP:AN/I. Going forward, I expect you to use these venues to discuss behavioral issues, and refrain from commenting about other editors on article Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You are indefinitely, but not permanently, blocked, having reviewed your conduct over the last six months plus.
There is a rather severe conflict between your true-believer status on the circumcision question and Wikipedia's standards of behavior, which both prohibit attempts to use Wikipedia as a venue to fight external real-world political or social battles (Wikipedia exists to neutrally report, not advocate) and requires that editors work constructively together to find consensus on what neutral coverage and relevant reliable sources are for all sides. You have violated every core principle of the encyclopedia and community to some degree and announced your intention to continue doing so.
I am not condemning you to a permanent ban from Wikipedia, but you are blocked with no end date. I have used the block tag "disruptive editing" but several others might apply.
You may appeal this and any administrator can unblock you (without contacting me first, though I would appreciate a notification if anyone does and a noticeboard post if you do). However, please review our core values and relevant policy for whether you have any ability to work constructively within the Wikipedia framework or not. You appear to have declared that you cannot and will not. That is not acceptable.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.