User talk:Akuma khan
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Akuma khan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Ysangkok (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]I have blocked you for violating our policy on biographies of living individuals and because I do not believe for one moment that this is your first or only account. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guy -- Mind explaining your decision and on what grounds you accuse me of holding multiple accounts? All I added was sourced from the Telegraph, and factual. All I deleted was unsupported. All you did was block me with no justification, far as I can see. Akuma khan (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Akuma khan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Guy here blocked me for unspecified reasons while I added sourced material to a biography and revised unsourced material, which he saw fit to replace. Further, Guy levels the base-less accusation that I hold various accounts. In fact, I do not.
Decline reason:
This edit added a lot of unsourced information, mostly with negative import. I would like for Guy to tell us who he believes you to be a sock of, but for the meantime the encyclopedia is well served by this block. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 4 February 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.
Akuma khan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Actually, NONE of the material I added is unsourced - it's all from the Telegraph article. If it was sourced incorrectly, let me know, but neither of you have actually explained the problem here. And it seems a bit much that after one edit, and without explanation as to how I could conduct the edit better, with no indication that I would problematically revisit or vandalize the page, I am blocked. Guy arbitrarily decided I hold multiple accounts -- then I'm told the added info was unsourced, which, unless there is something I'm missing, is entirely untrue. Also, I see no explanation as to why anybody saw fit to re-insert the unsourced "widely accepted" material??
Decline reason:
It does seem to me that that material was placed there with the intention of disparaging the subject, which is a large part of the reason for your block. If we're wrong (and I came to this conclusion entirely independently of the two admins above), then, by all means, persuade us so. If you can persuade me you weren't trying to disparage the subject, I'll consider enquiring with Guy about the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 4 February 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.
- (I'm not sure I'm supposed to add the unblock code for each reply. Let me know.) I think the truth of the subject's work may appear disparaging, but it doesn't make it any less true. Check Valerie Sinason's bibliography. She has written whole books on Satanic Ritual Abuse and topics that by entirely objective standards fall under each of the various academic definitions of "conspiracy theory". Pejorative implication aside, this is true, nor is this facet of her work merely side-line -- it is her defining work, it is what she is known for. In fact, it seems that she is most widely known for declaring a murdered body in the Thames to have been a Satanic Ritual Murder (this is what the Telegraph article I cited is about). Sinason's claims got the attention of media outlets, including the Independent, whose Health Editor later printed a retraction and apology for unquestioningly reporting on her accusations (which turned out to not be evidence-based at all). That article is re-printed here: http://www.bfms.org.uk/site_pages/frameset.htm. From it: "A year ago, Valerie Sinason appeared on Radio 4's Today programme claiming she had "clinical evidence" of babies who had not been registered at birth being involved in ritual abuse. The implication was that the babies had been conceived and raised secretly for use in rituals that sometimes ended in their sacrifice.
Most experts poured scorn on these claims and pointed out they could do serious harm by their very outlandishness - by making the whole of child abuse seem less likely and easier to dismiss. But they gained a measure of credence because Ms Sinason had been commissioned by the Department of Health, together with a colleague Dr Robert Hale, to write a report detailing her findings, which was submitted to the department last July.
I contacted the health department to ask what had happened to Ms Sinason's report and ask for a comment. What I received, by e-mail, was one of the longest and most carefully worded statements I can remember receiving.
The health department said, in summary, that they had received the report by Dr Hale and Ms Sinason, submitted it to peer review and returned it to the authors with reviewers' comments. They had no plans to publish it. They also cited separate research that they had commissioned from Professor Joan La Fontaine of the London School of Economics, who found "no independent material evidence" to support allegations of "Satanic child abuse and devil worship".
The coup de grace came in the final paragraph:
"In the Government's view, the conclusion of the study they commissioned by Professor La Fontaine ... has not been rendered invalid by Dr Hale and Valerie Sinason's study."" This is Sinason's public work, and there is nothing widely accepted about it. Surely, I don't buy into her conspiracy theories, and I do absolutely feel that she is wrong, but I don't think that should bar me from editing. I don't think that anybody who edits an entry on the flat earth society need be neutral as to whether the Earth is actually a sphere. If you feel there is a more neutral way in which to present this data about Sinason, please let me know (though I do feel that the veracity of her work and quality of her "evidence" deserve mention. Unflattering does not equal untrue). I do feel this dialog would have best taken place before the block. I don't hold multiple accounts. I'm not sure who else Guy imagines me to be, but he seems to have jumped to conclusions all his own. I still can't see on what grounds the uncited "widely accepted" material remains in the bio. Akuma khan (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need to use unblock every time you reply, just when you want a new admin (and there are about 600 of us active) to come and review your block. If that's what you want, then just revert my edit or if you just want to have a discussion between us, just reply underneath each comment and indent your reply with one more colon (:) than I used. Having read most of the above, may I ask you to read WP:UNDUE and, if you haven't already, WP:BLP, which are very important policies in this area, and I'll make a more detailed reply in the morning. As ever, if you want another admin to review your block, you can either revert my reformatting of the above or post a new request whenever you feel like it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)