User talk:Sikhvirtue
|
December 2011[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Death of Muammar Gaddafi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. nprice (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- The autopsy showed a gunshot wound to the head beyond what's necessary to subdue a prisoner of war. Also look to ref.20 for the proof of his being sodomised after capture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikhvirtue (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 December 2011
Notice of article probation on Men's rights articles[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's liberation, is under probation. A detailed description of the terms of that probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --Cailil talk 13:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
categories[edit]
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Child abuse, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Child abuse is not a form of behaviour modification, and domestic violence is not a form of dispute resolution. Please be aware that edits like this may be seen as vandalism if a pattern of such behaviour is seen in your contributions. Cailil talk 14:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- What you have asserted first should be discussed. Do you have any reliably sourced justification for either premise?
blocked[edit]
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cailil talk 14:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC) |
Sikhvirtue (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is not a sock and you have failed to establish any case that excludes these. Unblock.
Decline reason:
Whether you are a sock or not, the changes you have been making to articles such as Causes of sexual violence are very disturbing. That particular one looked like an attempt to rewrite the article to sanitize sexual violence, changing it to describe perpetrators and rapists as merely "participants" etc. And you tried to classify Child abuse as a form of "Behaviour modification". Using Wikipedia to push any personal POV is not acceptable here, and the one apparent behind your recent edits is just not going to happen here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
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.
{unblock|I would defend that there are participants in rape who are not "rapists", there are members of these gangs who lure, restrain and keep lookout. Participants is the broader, preferable term. Also, the classic techniques of child abuse eg. spanking, grounding, corporal punishment, circumcision and religious instruction, should not be doubted for their intention and effect w.r.t behaviour modification. I'll supply evidence.All your points are acknowledged and I am aware of the discussion forums for these matters. As we agree that I there is no "sock" issue, then unblock to enable participation in those forums.}}
- Firstly, *your* reasoning and interpretation is not relevant, and you can't put it in the article - you may wish to sanitize rape and other sexual violence, but you'll have to do it elsewhere - unless, of course, you can get a consensus here, but that would seem unlikely. Secondly, I see no agreement that you were not socking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sikhvirtue (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wrong. Nothing to do with with what's attributed as reasoning and interpretation from me. It comes from reliable independent sources:
Yes it's convenient to dress it is that I'm a sock of some other account that didn't even edit the same articles, but the issue of the writing and categorisation of these articles is appropriate to be taken to their talk venues. I've raised it. It's substantial and a serious matter. You just block and it stifles those matters from getting an airing in the proper places.
Decline reason:
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.
- Your edit patterns are pretty obvious, David. Give it up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)