User talk:Thiscrund68

References

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. 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the talk page

Your recent edits to this article have been challenged by numerous Wikipedians over the past few days due to their poor sourcing and blatant disregard for consensus despite it having been explained in length on the talk page of the article. Please discuss it some more before making these changes or this will have to go to WP:ANI. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Genital modification and mutilation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOAP

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Circumcision for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2017 (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).

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not know I am doing anything wrong. I have created a big topic "Harms of circumcision" to improve the article, not for forum discussion. Other of my topics were "Forced circumcision of pre-teen boys by illiterate local operators: Medical procedure or violence?" I asked for a new articles that will cover the cases of such forced circumcision of pre-teen boys (violence), as the current article is not classified under "Violence" category. I also created a topic "Comparison of circumcision and female genital mutilation". I created another topic "Is non-medical male genital cutting a medical procedure or a "grievous bodily harm (criminal offence)?" I created the topic because the article states as non-medical male genital cutting is same as a medical circumcision done for a medical necessity and both are medical procedures. So I raised the topic whether non-medical male genital cutting is a medical procedure. In many countries, female genital cutting is being performed in hospitals and healthcare settings by doctors and trained medical professionals. This is called medicalization of female genital cutting. Demographic and Health Surveys data show that the medicalization of female genital cutting has increased substantially in recent years, particularly in Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Northern Sudan, Mali, and Yemen and recently in Indonesia. But even when performed by a doctor, non-medical female genital cutting can't be a medical procedure. This raises the question whether non-medical male genital cutting is a medical procedure. So I created the topic and asked for 2 separate articles - one for medical circumcision and another for non-medical male genital cutting. Anyway, if I have done anything wrong, let me know and unblock my account please. I just wanted to improve the article. I created a topic "Harms of Circumcision" with a list of harms caused by circumcision, but I don't know what was wrong with that. Thiscrund68 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no way I'd unblock you to return to editing circumcision or its talk page. If you don't understand why, I recommend reading the WP:TIGERS essay. PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2017 (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.

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).

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I created some topics in talk page. Administrator blocked my account because I created a couple of topics in the talk page those he considered not to be useful for the article. I am new in Wikipedia. Unblock my account and I will be more careful. Thiscrund68 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I, too, am unhappy unblocking you unless you agree to a topic ban. Yamla (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2017 (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.

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).

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked by an administrator because I posted a few new topics in the talk page which the administrator considered not to be useful for the article. I thought that I could discuss on a controversial topic with other Wiki writers on the talk page. As it's a controversial issue I did not make any edit in the original Wiki article and rather created some new sections in the talk page. The administrator blocked me possibly because it's not allowed to use the talk page like a discussion forum. But I am new in Wikipedia and am not aware of all these. So unblock my account and I will be more careful. Thiscrund68 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Doesn't look to me like any admin is going to unblock you unless you agree to a topic ban. I suggest your next unblock request do exactly that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:22, 2 October 2017 (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.

You don't seem to understand that one of the reasons you were blocked is because you were repeatedly misusing the talk page. You were using the talk page as a soapbox platform to air your views. You should know that Wikipedia is never to be used as a forum for discussing a topic, and that's what you did, repeatedly ignoring the warnings you received at the top of this section. Basically, you were not here to build an encyclopedia. Convince us that you are, and you can be unblocked.... but I agree with the admins above that you must agree not to participate on the circumcision talk page as a condition for being unblocked. Disruption such as you have engaged in is unwelcome on Wikipedia. There are other venues where you can engage in that activity. Wikipedia isn't one of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2017 (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).

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The last administrator wants me to ban from "Circumcision" talk page in order to unblock my account. However, no, I would like to get an unconditional unblock. As the reason I was blocked, the first administrator mentioned as, "You were using the talk page as a soapbox platform to air your views. You should know that Wikipedia is never to be used as a forum for discussing a topic " However, as a new Wikipedia user I was not aware about how to post new topics on talk page. Now I will be more careful. Since this is the first time I have made some unintentional mistakes editing talk page, I would again appeal to next available admin for an unconditional unblock of my account. And my condition is that, since all the talk pages and articles including the "Circumcision" talk page and article is being monitored all the time by Wikipedia administrators, if next time I make same mistake whether in "Circumcision" talk page or whatever talk page, I can be blocked again. Thiscrund68 (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Rather than waiting until you continue your POV pushing and blocking you again, how's about we just leave this block in place? Here's the deal; you are not getting unblocked unless to agree to stay away from that subject area. Four administrators have now told you this. If your next appeal does not lay out a suitable plan for returning to editing - including an agreement to a voluntary topic ban on circumcision and genital mutilation, broadly construed - you can expect to lose your ability to edit this page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:32, 3 October 2017 (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.

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).

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand for what reason my account has been blocked. As the first administrator said, "You were using the talk page as a soapbox platform to air your views. You should know that Wikipedia is never to be used as a forum for discussing a topic " And now I will not make the same mistake again. This is to be noted as I did not make any edit in the original article "Circumcision". I just posted new topics in it's talk page looking for approval of the new contents. Since this is the first time I made this mistake editing talk page, I would appeal for an unconditional unblock of my account. Next time I will be careful. If I make same mistake again in any Wikipedia article or talk page, administrators monitoring all the Wikipedia pages will take care of the corrective action and they can also ban the account for repeated violation. I am new here in Wikipedia and still learning all these Wiki policies. So I appeal for a consideration for my 1st time unintentional mistake. However, if you won't unblock my account for all the pages anyway, unblock my account for the other pages at least. But I would really appreciate an unconditional unblock of my account. Thiscrund68 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been told repeatedly that you must agree to avoid editing on this subject, and you have persistently failed to respond positively. Your access to this page is now revoked. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:12, 7 October 2017 (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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19481 was submitted on Oct 12, 2017 21:11:43. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second chance with topic ban offered

Following a lengthy discussion with Thiscrund68 in the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel I have re-established talk page access. They said they would be OK with an indefinite topic ban from circumcision, widely construed (that includes not just articles but also, for example, talk page discussions about circumcision or circumcision-related content in articles whose topic is not circumcision); if they confirm that here on the talk page, I will unblock the account. Huon (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2017 (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).

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I completely agree. I will not use the talk page for discussing with other Wikipedians regarding my questions on any topic. I would rather use Wikipedia reference desk for any such questions. I will only post information in the talk page which are verifiable and I will provide the respective references as well if required. And I will only post information in the talk page ehich are constructive for the article. And, I will only post information in an article which are verifiable with high quality references. Unblock my account please. Thiscrund68 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Funny thing: I actually remember what I offered and what you agreed to, and this isn't it. If there's any doubt I can post the relevant chatlogs; other admins who were in that channel will confirm them. Faking my own comment is a sure-fire way to convince me that you are not acting in good faith. Huon (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2017 (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.

Do not EVER refactor other users comments as you did here. That sort of behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, and if I had not already declined one unblock appeal from this account I would have immediately declined this one out of hand, purely for that edit. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, given that you would pull a stunt like that (deliberately refactoring an admin's comment to make it appear that they had agreed you didn't need a topic ban, when in fact they had offered you an unblock specifically on that condition) I have removed your talkpage access again. You clearly have no positive contributions to make to a communal project such as Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I received an email from Thiscrund68 where they state they agree with the topic ban. They said so before and then pulled the stunt documented above. I see no reason to trust them a second time. Huon (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19504 was submitted on Oct 15, 2017 22:37:46. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19538 was submitted on Oct 20, 2017 04:30:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Thiscrund68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19556 was submitted on Oct 20, 2017 18:58:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thiscrund68, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Nihlus 01:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]