User talk:Sigismond

Ten Commandments

Wikipedia talk pages are intended only for discussing how to improve the article. Please don't post personal views, news, etc. See our Talk page guidelines for further information. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I understand you have a long history (spread over multiple accounts) of using the Ten Commandments article to promulgate your view that the Ten Commandments prohibit circumcision. You've never been able even to show that anyone has published this view in a reliable source, let alone that it has sufficient weight among hundreds of thousands of published theological opinions and interpretations to warrant mentioning in a relatively brief encyclopedia article, which for reasons of space and readability can only summarize major views and information. You've been blocked several times over this. I'm going to give you a (final) warning this time. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are wrong:

My views, actually merely logical and historical, not about the Ten Commandments but about the 2nd one, have been accepted by:

- the French Wikipedia "Decalogue" article, on the front page where "Tu ne circonciras pas." means "Thou shall not circucmcise.":

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9calogue#.C2.AB.C2.A0Tu_ne_circonciras_pas._.C2.BB

- the British medical journal:

See the 15.01.08 letter to the Editor: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7631/1180#183746 (at the bottom of the page)

They have been the subject of a lecture given at the 10th international symposium of NOCIRC, 4 September 2008, in the School of law of the University of Keele (U.-K.)

see page "i" of the programm:

http://nocirc.org/symposia/tenth/symposium08.pdf

And a thorough article has been published in the American Internet press:

http://salem-news.com/articles/january312008/circ_paris_13108.php

Therefore you should let me publish them again.

One account only.

Wikipedia policies only allow one account to be used; please choose either this one or User:Newsigmund, and the other will be redirected here. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you and pardon me; I choose this one but do not know how to suppress the other one.

No problem. I have blocked the other account, tagged it as a {{FormerAccount}} and redirected its talk page here, so you should have no further issues. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you very much, Avi.

You request on the Rollback request board

You don't need rollback for what you were requesting, and you didn't request it properly. If you can't make an edit, the page is likely protected to some degree. Make your request on the article's talk page and discuss it there. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Your suggestion was already executed, thank you, but the discussion does not move forward, this is why I tried something else, without much success , I'm afraid.

You seem to misunderstand basic wikipedia policies

Please carefully review WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Your own work is nt acceptable on wikipedia, no matter how obvious you think it is. Firstly, as it is not even remotely accepted by any bibilical exegete, from the times of the Talmud until today, which is around 2000 years. Secondly, as wikipedia is not the place to publish original works. At this point, it has been explained to you a number of times in a polite fashion. Further disregard of core wikipedia policies may result in measures taken to protect the project's integrity. Thank you for your understanding. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded reproach

Since, historically, all opponents to circumcision have been either smothered or slaughtered, your objection concerning Biblical exegetes is not relevant. For the same reason, it is very unlikely that my opinion shoud ever be accepted by a Biblical review.

Second I do not wish publishing my original work, which is already done in various places, but only quoting it, as suggested by one of the administators.

Since you seem to deny these facts, your opposition strongly looks like a religious, not encyclopedic one.

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ten commandments. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jheald (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about that rule.

However, there has already had a very long "discussion" about this short "Exterior link". My opponents are dogmaticaly resolute and discussing has proved useless.

Since I only require an exterior link, there is no reason why my seriously referenced edit (Salem-News, an e-letter accepted by the Editor of the British medical journal, and a lecture in the 10th international symposium of NOCIRC in the University of Keele School of Law) should not appear in the article. Sigismond (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-letters to the BMJ are very lightly moderated, and every crank can publish stuff there, as indeed you seem to have. JFW | T@lk 21:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ! You're now libelling the editor of the British medical journal; you must be crazy.

Just go on the concerned link on Dr Hinchley's article (Geoff Hinchley. Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? Yes. BMJ 2007; 335: 1180), so as to make sure about your nonsensical affirmation: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7631/1180

You gotta be kidding. You're using your own opinion in a letter responding to an online letter as a reference for adding your opinion to an encyclopedia? I've reverted you; keep it up and I'll block you. I've given you links to dispute resolution if you think we're all being unreasonable. kwami (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not kidding at all, you are, through denying that the Editor of the BMJ accepted a summary of my thesis in order to comfort Dr Hinchley's one of the unethical character of circumcision.

It is very obvious that this debate is of a main interest to the general pbulic, which is WIKIPEDIA's public.

The BMJ eLetters facility, as I said, is essentially a blog. You posted not just one but EIGHT responses to Hinchley's article. As I said the comments are not heavily moderated (only defamatory stuff is redacted), hence I am in no way "libelling" the editor. You are an internet nuisance and you shall remain blocked. Good day. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong; the Editor only posts, or does not post, messages. Try to post something; you'll at once find out that you cannot post anything. Quite a few of my messages have been accepted because, since ten years I'm dealing with the topic, I know a great deal about it, I've become an authority and my views are easily accepted by other authorities. However, two or three of my posts - a little dared or of less interest - have been refused. Your libelling against me, against the various posters and against the Editor of the BMJ (all articles there are of excellent quality - read them, you'll see - and many by medical practioners) is full of insane hatred. You must be a very, very young man. And you certainly do not deserve the power of which you abuse here.

Furthermore, if we read the "Comments on the Ten Commandments of the Freedom from religion foundation" that we find in the "Exterior links", they are simply ridiculous:

"What’s Wrong With The Ten Commandments?

Do study the ten commandments! They epitomize the childishness, the vindictiveness, the sexism, the inflexibility and the inadequacies of the bible as a book of morals."

You give a link to this crap and your refuse my own very elaborate comment?! You are not serious. Actually, you must think that my comment is politically incorrect; that's the reason why you keep slandering me. Sigismond (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

You have been blocked from editing indefinitely to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sigismond (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The new non agressive but positive title to my article " "Thou shall not circumcise.", the abolition of circumcision by the Second Commandment" has been adopted by Salem-news: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march162010/mill-falsification-mh.php

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring. The only exception to the policy on edit warring is reverting blatant vandalism. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sigismond (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I have never had the intention to cause any damage to WIKIPEDIA but only to improve the quality of its information. This is proved by the fact that my interpretation of the 2nd Commandment has received the support of one of the greatest living exegetes of the Bible: Professor Thomas Römer, who teaches the Old Testament in the University of Lausanne and is, since 2007, with tenure of the "Biblical environment" chair of the Collège de France (the highest French Academic institution). See his postcard there: http://intact.wikia.com/wiki/File:R%C3%B6mer.jpg, and the translation of the relevant passage hereafter: "..., you are right asserting that Gn 17 presents another vision of circumcision than Gn 15 or the Deuteronomy. The "lay" writers were apparently less interested by this practice, and even opposed to it. The expression "circumcision of the heart" could even contain a polemic stand against "circumcision of the flesh.". Isn't his input sufficient to mention my discovery somewhere, at least in the "exterior links", if not inside the article?

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.