User talk:GenoV84/2018/October

Archives

No original research

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Circumcision controversies, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Circumcision controversies 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is not OK per WP:MEDRS. Please do read that guidance. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2018 (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. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Could you please explain to me what does it mean? I have no idea what this is.--GenoV84 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the links in the message? If so, please tell me what you understand and I will explain anything that is incomplete or incorrect. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing neutrally

Your edits about circumcision are quite blatantly violating WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a site for advocacy. Please review WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV which are policy, and see also the useful essay, WP:ADVOCACY.

Please be aware that editing is a privilege offered to everyone; however if people consistently violate the policies and guidelines, the editing community removes or restricts that person's editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: POV? The American Academy of Pediatrics is POV? I don't think so. All the sources that i inserted on that page can be found on PubMed and the Prevalence of circumcision WP page, not advocacy websites. Check your facts next time, stop threatening me and stop reverting other people's contributions without opening discussions.--GenoV84 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of the source starkly distorted it. Unacceptable editing. We summarize sources; we do mot cherry pick bits that please us. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the links I provided in the original post above. You are abusing your editing privileges for advocacy. This is not what editing privileges are for. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find User:Jytdog/How helpful. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

I am starting to gather diffs to seek a TBAN for you with respect to circumcision. Your edits are violating the policies and guidelines, behaviorally and in terms of content. Please self-manage your advocacy.

Your recent editing history at Genital modification and mutilation 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Are you going to request a TBAN on me because i added medical journals to WP pages related to circumcision? Alright, i won't edit on that page anymore, but i want to hear what other admins and contributors think about all this situation, because until now the only person that tried to block me from editing Wikipedia is you, you are the one that threatens me everytime and you are the one that reverts my edits on pages like Circumcision controversies whenever i add medical journals, which are reliable sources, and clearly no one has ever complained about it or tried to revert my contributions except for you, probably because you don't accept any other point of view except for yours. I think it's time to make things clear, 'cause you're not behaving properly towards me.--GenoV84 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]