User talk:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau

There is a dishonest guy: Protot, who, on the page "Alain Guionnet", without any justification, keeps repeatedly deleting the precious and proven information I gave concerning the Association contre la mutilation des enfants and its foundation by Guionnet. He should be blocked. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Alain Guionnet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing..
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You appear to have been warned about this previously at User talk:31.33.52.190. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Dear Sir, please notice that I did not begin the war and that it was only at the end of long efforts that I first warned Protot and then, reported him to the wiki's authorities. It is a political war since the AME belongs to the French neo-Nazi far-right.

September 2014
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Yazidis, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You have no reason, nor consequently right, to accuse me, in an overbearing way, of "test edits". I don't even know what "test edits" are (you mean testing other editors???!!!) and I was certainly not "experimenting".

Now, my edit was this: "This belief builds on Sufi mystical reflections on the angel Iblis, who proudly refused to violate monotheism by worshipping Adam and Eve despite God's express command not (I ADDED THE NOT) (Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)) to do so."

In my knowledge, there has never been a command to worship Adam and Eve. It is true that there is no command either not to worship them, so that my correction was indeed awckard and unaccurate; instead of adding "not", I should have rubbed out "despite God's express command", which I would have liked to do today but couldn't because, since then, the page has been "semi-protected"?! But this is not a reason to accuse me, in an overbearing way, of "test edits". Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
I'm afraid I've just been there and couldn't find anything? Since I was not warned of this edit in my mailbox at gmail, it is possible that the edit in question has been archived and I cannot see it any longer? Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's been archived. You can find it by typing either your username or preferably the thread title into the archive search box on the Teahouse questions page.  It will point you at Teahouse/Questions/Archive 247. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your undoing without explanation
You've just undone without any explanation my bringing a few scientific references about sensitivity in the paragraph "Adverse effects of circumcision". This seems to be a beginning of edit warring. Why do you behave in such an unfriendly way? Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MEDRS. We typically only use high quality secondary sources. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless it is a primary source which is positive towards circumcision, or national medical association which smiles upon it. For secondary sources if the abstract is positive towards circumcision we concentrate upon that, and if not then we pluck bits from the text of the article that are. welcome to wickedpedia where all is not as it seems or says.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * how is this anything other than the continuation of the same tendentious editing blocked you for?   03:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion once again Zad. Is it another example of your tendentious editing for which you so far lead a largely charmed life ? When did you stop beating your wife ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn talk 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You are absolutely right; I merely added a very few of the very best scientific articles about the loss of sensitivity to circumcision, I am indeed the victim of a totally antiscientific warring. The answers of my opponents prove their bad faith. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but, in this particular case, you and these editors happen to pronounce in a totally aberrant way about scientific issues you do not know anything about and of which I am a reknown specialist (see my page: https://independent.academia.edu/MichelHerv%C3%A9BertauxNavoiseau), not they. Now please do not revert the reality: they warred me and not the reverse. Now you may call tenths of people to speak the same nonsensical speech. It will only strengthen wikipedia's reputation of dogmatism. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dr. Herve, I appreciate your expertise, but the problem here isn't knowledge of the topic but your behavior. You may well think you're right, but you're going about it the wrong way. I see now what you've been going on about with, and I'm going to have another look at the Guionnet article, to see if our WP:BLP is being violated. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My behaviour is that of a very tired and overburdenned old man. I'm sorry I can't argue with a bunch of irrespectuous and aggressive young men who want to rule a world that, if no one listens to me, is going straight to inter-extermination: https://www.academia.edu/3133102/Why_genocides_genocide_and_circumcision_a_psychoanalytical_theory_of_genocide_updated_28.12.2014_.

Now, dear Sir, you and other persons have suppressed, through sick obsessive rules, unvaluable information about the bunch of neo-Nazis led by Alain Guionnet and his friends of the AME. I had brought that information that is precious for French people not to get fooled by these neo-Nazis: the proof that Guionnet, Valla and Diers founded Revision and the AME in the same time (1999), which the psychiatrist Michel Erlich had alluded to - but he did not know precisely - in the article I quoted (thanks not to have destroyed it). Thanks to me, Valla, and Diers gave up being presidents and their friend Guérin succeeded them!!! Suppressing all about Valla and his own revisionism, you take the insane responsibility to enable them appearing as mere lay opponents of circumcision whereas they are mainly antiSemites!!! Thank you, Sir, I won't try to edit again there since you are stronger with your stupid rules. The secondary source rule, in this example allows you to rub out a source that is not a litterary one but a mere administrative, state source: the record of the AME in the Préfecture de Nanterre, so that it does not require peer reviewing. Despizing that source is simply crazy, sorry, I cannot find another word. And you dared write that since I personnally loaded that pic of the AME's administrative record, then, the source would be doubtful. Now, Sir, why don't you go and verify by yourself at the Préfecture de Nanterre? Now, maybe you are also a neo-Nazi?!!! Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you please specify what makes you a "reknown [sic] specialist"? I entered your name into Google Scholar and got zero hits. Do you have any qualifications as a medical doctor or in a related field? Publications in a peer-reviewed journal?89.204.135.118 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, being the one and only psychoanalysis researcher specialized in sexual mutilation, I have no peers and there's a long time I gave up the idea to publish in medical journals where the circumcisers make their insane law! :-( However, the Editor of the BJU International once published this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04113.x/full

But only go and read these two and you'll understand that they are far ahead all the articles you can find with Pediatrics or the American Journal of sexual medicine:

https://www.academia.edu/2274700/The_foreskin_a_sexual_organ_an_erogenous-and-protective-of-erogeneity_lip_its_ablation_is_a_mutilation_updated_12.15.2014_

https://www.academia.edu/5916685/86_of_circumcised_men_cannot_enjoy_serial_little_orgasms_84_of_intacts_can_Please_testify_updated_12.29.2014_ Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The page (among the top 5%), where I publish my book and around 50 articles against sexual mutilation is approaching 32.000 views: https://independent.academia.edu/MichelHerv%C3%A9BertauxNavoiseau Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great, but anyone can create an account on Academia.edu and publish anything. Such material does not come close to meeting our WP:RS policies. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I won't ever try again to policies that are totally closed to innovation. Good by and fare well. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome.Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Abraham
Hello Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau. I noticed your to the Abraham article but which have already been reverted by another editor. This unfortunately promoted what is considered a fringe hypothesis (WP:FRINGE), that is, not a main view among scholars. Thus according to WP:NPOV it probably should not be represented as "extraordinary finding" or truth. There appeared to be another issue which was the use of a self-written source, suggesting a conflict of interest (WP:COI). Unfortunately, this source is also not considered a reliable source (WP:RS) for Wikipedia because it has not been peer reviewed, edited and published by third parties (note that Wikipedia as user-generated content is also not considered a reliable source for similar reasons, so this is not to insult your work, but a technical restriction on what can be used as references to build the encyclopedia). Another important thing to know is that Wikipedia cannot be used to promote original research (WP:OR). As such, it is true that it is not necessarily progressive and it may even be "closed to innovation" as you once wrote. There are other venues for original and scientific research as well as scientific journals, which Wikipedia is not. Thank you and have a good day, — Paleo Neonate  – 04:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You are right about my own book only published on academia.edu, but not about Secrets of the Exodus, the best-seller that made Le Figaro 20 September 2000 front page and inside double page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button Signature icon april 2018.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please post to FTN, not the article talk page right now. And people rarely read the top post, newest posts are always meant to be at the bottom. I've explained why I removed Desroche-Delacourt there. Doug Weller  talk 18:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What is FTN? I was told to write in the talk page?! Mac does not have the tildes and I do not see any signature button above the edit window. I'm afraid you are not qualified to remove Deroche-Noblecourt's findings from a commentary about Freud's allegedly fringe theory.


 * Of course I'm qualified after over 180,000 edits to know what meets our criteria for sourcing an article. You aren't. As it says at WP:FTN ""On retrouve par exemple la référence précise aux dix commandements à l'époque des pyramides", or "We find, for example, precise reference to the Ten Commandments at the time of the pyramids". Sources must mention Pharoahs in the Bible, and she doesn't. Nor is there any clue as to what "precise reference" she means. Our no original research policy means that unlike in an essay you can't build up arguments from sources that don't discuss the topic of the article.
 * You also proved to be someone that is not just happy to attack other editors but is happy to make up material for your attacks. If I were Jewish I'd be proud of it, but I'm neither Jewish nor Zionist. Doug Weller  talk 16:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 16:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Reported for editwarring
Thank you very much; I'm tired of losing my time with a bunch of Zionists who hate the historical truth.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring and for making personal attacks against other editors. 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:. Yunshui 雲 水 09:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)