User talk:Sigismont

Ten commandments
Your addition to Ten Commandments was removed. I cannot see how the second commandment could possibly refer to circumcision, let alone implicitly abolish it. If you think I was mistaken, please discuss this issue on Talk:Ten Commandments first. JFW | T@lk  21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have now twice reinserted your highly doubtful material. I left a message on Talk:Ten Commandments to discuss this further. However, all you did was expand on the same content that you simply duplicated on that talkpage.
 * At the moment you are promulgating a novel theory that is not accepted by any authority. For the purpose of Wikipedia, such theories cannot be included. The relevant policies are WP:NOR (original research) and WP:UNDUE (undue weight to minority views).
 * Please offer your comments on Talk:Ten Commandments. I am aware that you are very eager for the theory to be included on Wikipedia, but I'm affraid we need to stick to our content policies that differentiate Wikipedia from just any blog. JFW | T@lk  16:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You have still not provided a satisfactory explanation why we need to devote attention to circumcision on the Ten Commandments page. The connection may exist in your mind, but despite your quotations from Geiger etc there is NO DIRECT LINK that would warrant inclusion of this material in the article. I thought I'd provided ample explanation. My next step is likely to be WP:RFC, so please address my concerns on Talk:Ten Commandments. JFW | T@lk  20:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please address my concerns on the article talkpage instead of reinserting your paragraph on circumcision. JFW | T@lk  20:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have responded in great detail to your posting on Talk:Ten Commandments. I have also had a look at your paper on the intactwiki, which actually contains an admission that your "link" to the Ten Commandments is your own invention rather than Geiger's. Your Biblical scholarship is interesting (and wrong on almost all accounts), but you simply cannot use Wikipedia to promulgate it unless it has already found WIDE acceptance. JFW | T@lk  10:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigismont, while I haven't been directly involved in the discussion, I've reviewed the discussion at Talk:Ten Commandments, and I'm concerned that discussion needs to focus more on what reliable, published sources have argued, and less on the personal interpretations of individual editors. I think that it would be helpful if you were to bring to that talk page reliable, published sources that argue the point(s) you wish to make. In particular, you need sources to establish direct relevance to the subject of the article. To quote from policy: "In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately."
 * I'd strongly encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:NOR, as well as closely related policies including WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. I hope this helps. Best wishes, Jakew 14:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Your edits to Ten Commandments have been repeatedly reverted because they do not comply with Wikipedia's original research synthesis policy. Compliance with this policy is mandatory and further failure to adhere to it can lead to loss of editing privileges under Wikipedia's blocking policy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I am completely blocked (you do not even respect the rule of the three publications of this particular piece). I suggest the following shortened redaction for the main page article:

Circumcision
Quote from Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter publishers limited, 1972) "In 1843, the clerical leaders of the Reform movement in Frankfort sought to abolish circumcision among their adherents; the controversy concerning its necessity in Judaism lasted 20 years and eventually spread to America. They based their objections to circumcision on five reasons (among which two directly refer to the Ten Commandments): (1) It was commanded to Abraham and not to Moses... (2) It is only mentioned only once in the Mosaic law; it is not repeated in Deuteronomy... All (their) reasons were answered by Orthodox rabbinical authorities. To counter this agitation, Leopold Zunz wrote his essay on circumcision (Gutachten ueber did Beschneidung, Frankfort, 1843). Today, most Reform Jews have their children circumcised. It is, however, often done by a surgeon with a rabbi in attendance to say the prayers, or without any ceremony at all." (see discussion for more information)

30.11.7 - After your new rubbing out and blocking, I'm afraid there has been no answer neither to my last arguments nor any explication to the very last "block" that therefore is arbitrary. I've now properly argumented that the Reform rabbis gave two "Ten Commandments" arguments in their controversy against circumcision. Consequently, I'm definitively quitting this erratic place.

I heard yesterday on the French radio that you libelled a Frenchman who encounters great difficulty to sue Wikipedia because it is based in Florida. But in my case, the question raised by your attitude is either that of French-phobia or goy-phobia.

So long!

Circumcision
Please stop editing the circumcision article so as to misrepresent the World Health Organisation. This source clearly states that 30%, not 20% of men worldwide have been circumcised. If you believe that they are incorrect, Wikipedia is not the correct place to dispute their calculations. Please be aware that inserting misinformation into articles is considered to be a form of vandalism. Jakew 23:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that obvious misinformation is indeed vandalism and must be corrected whatever its source, may it be the WHO. Then, it is obvious that the absolute figure of 665 millions circumcised given by the WHO must be right, but the percentage is certainly and definitely wrong.

Are you a human being, a robot or a vandal?????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigismont (talk • contribs)


 * On the contrary, our verifiability policy clearly states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That means that we are concerned only with accurately reporting what reliable sources have stated. We cannot 'correct' such information unless we have a source for the 'correction', and we cannot attribute a claim to a source that did not make that claim. Jakew (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

All right about not correcting. What prevents the wiki to warn with obvious mistakes of so-called reliable sources? Sigismont (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, if a published, reliable source notes a mistake in another source, then we can use that. For example, we can say "Smith states X, but Jones states that there is an error in Smith's work..." But we can't say that there's an error in a source unless we have a source which makes that point. Jakew (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Block
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and repeated violations of WP:NOR and WP:SYN after repeated warnings. See Talk:Ten commandments. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Further block
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Unfortunately you have again reinserted your material against consensus and against policy (WP:NOR and WP:SYN as explained numerous times). I've blocked you for one week. You risk progressively longer blocks by persisting. JFW | T@lk  18:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Further block
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.  --> --> --> --> --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC) You again reinserted this material. I've blocked you for two weeks this time. I'm being lenient by not doing "three strikes and you're out" and blocking you for a much longer time. It will definitely be longer if there's a next time. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I support Shirahadasha's block, and find it hard to believe that you continue to flagrantly ignore consensus and Wikipedia policy to get your views across. What do you expect to happen, exactly? Unless you substantially change your attitude, I fear your next block will be a permanent one. JFW | T@lk  20:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet another block
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.  --> --> --> --> --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for three months for inserting original research in Ten Commandments after numerous previous warnings and multiple previous blocks. See above. --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)