User talk:Maaz991
Welcome
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
The misleading statement in the Wikipedia article "Circumcision" that "No major medical organization calls for banning non-medical circumcision".
[edit]
Maaz991 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, my account has banned blocked for alleged sock puppetry. But I haven’t exactly committed sock puppetry. I created a group with my other 3 friends to write new articles. We decided to help each other to write something new. And we didn’t created this team for supporting one side of a dispute. About the IP address issue, all the 4 of us created the accounts from different devices initially. But while posting the writings to Wikipedia, we used university internet connection and all of our IP addresses appeared similar as a result. Now about the content dispute, the 1st edit was made by Sdm215, and his post was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&oldid=805226215#Non-medical_circumcision:_.22Medical_procedure.22_or_.22Grievous_bodily_harm.22 But his edit was reverted by the user GeneralizationsAreBad and he received a message in his talk page that the edit is less than neutral. However, we was not able to understand what is not neutral as we just posted the statements of major medical organizations on non-medical circumcision providing all the respective references. The currently live version of the “Circumcision” article contains a misleading statement “No major medical organization recommends universal neonatal circumcision, and no major medical organization calls for banning it either.” which we removed and posted the statements of the major medical organizations separately. The currently live version of the article also states that “The Royal Dutch Medical Association, which expresses some of the strongest opposition to routine neonatal circumcision, does not call for the practice to be made illegal out of their concern that parents who insist on the procedure would turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals.” Which is a clear misleading information. Royal Dutch Medical Association states that there is no place for non-medical circumcision in medical science as a medical procedure, and that the foreskin is an essential part of the penis and non-medical circumcision is a harmful and abusive practice. Royal Dutch Medical Association also states that non-medical circumcision provides no meaningful benefits. A statement from Royal Dutch Medical Association which reads, “There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds." "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations." - Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) Royal Dutch Medical Association also state that there are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-medical circumcision of minor boys, as exists for female genital mutilation. Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) opposes World Health Organization (WHO) for calling non-medical circumcision not a mutilation where WHO calls any form of female genital cutting a mutilation. Reference: https://www.knmg.nl/circumcision/ Summery of statements of medical organizations: Some called the practice mutilation, some asked for ban of the practice, some said that there is no place for non-medical circumcision in medical science as a medical procedure, and that the foreskin is an essential part of the penis and non-medical circumcision is a harmful and abusive practice., others said that non-medical circumcision is a harmful practice, majority of the medical organizations except a notable exception said that non-medical circumcision provides no benefit. 2 organizations aid that the so called benefits of non-medical circumcision as promoted by it’s supporters are misleading and deceptive. Danish Society for General Medicine state that there is no principle difference between non-medical circumcision and female genital mutilation. Now, please consider that I do not make these statements. I just mention these statements in my writing and give respective references. So there is no question of neutrality here. The first edition of the writing posted by Sdm215 required some updates. So, we made some updates from university using university internet to the first edition posted by Sdm215. Here’s the latest version of the writing posted by me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&oldid=805303420#Non-medical_circumcision:_.22Medical_procedure.22_or_.22Grievous_bodily_harm.22 While making the updates, we reverted the “undo” action (those undid the edit made by Sdm215) of other Wikipedia users. Though 3 of us revered the “undo” action made by other Wikipedia users, none of us received any message in our talk page regarding the reason our edits are being reverted. Later all of our got blocked for alleged sock puppetry. Now if it’s recommended not to co-operate with my friends in person to write joint articles for Wikipedia, each of us can start writing independently and if required we can communicate via Wikipedia talk pages. And I would like to have discussions with other parties on their personal talk pages and article talk page regarding what is not neutral in the post. And we would like to reach a resolution. Please unblock my account. Currently, I am unable to edit any page, including the talk pages of other users. Maaz991 (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for violating WP:SOCK. Everything about the content of your edits is irrelevant, so I am only addressing the first paragraph of your request. The sockpuppetry is more than just the similar IP address. Even if it was just the IP address, which it isn't, what you are describing is inappropriate and would be grounds to leave the block in place. As such, there's no basis to lift the block and I decline your request. Yamla (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2017 (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.