User talk:Thonos

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Rectal pain, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not acceptable?--Thonos (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreffed and not in the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rectal pain, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Rectal pain was changed by Thonos (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.87982 on 2011-05-14T22:26:22+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Frank Ellis (Leeds University lecturer)

The article Frank Ellis (Leeds University lecturer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them" (WP:BLP1E).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ... discospinster _talk 17:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Is this because I added the N-word into the article sumary? It was a mistake, I didn't want anyone to see it publicly. And why did you delete the whole article???--Thonos (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have looked at every one of your edits, and only one of them could, as far as I can see, possibly be described as "vandalism", so "persistent vandalism" does not seem a reasonable description of your editing. I don't know how that edit summary came about as a "mistake", but an indefinite block for one out-of character edit seems excessive, so I will reduce the length of your block to 48 hours from when you were blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote the above, my judgement has been questioned as you added "brutal anal sex" three times to the article on rectal pain. I have given you the benefit of the doubt there, and assumed that you were editing in good faith, even though the edits did not seem helpful. However, I should warn you that such benefit of the doubt may be less likely if any similar editing occurs. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't vandalism, you can google it that brutal anal sex may be one of the causes of rectal pain. It was blocked by a bot and i'll turn it back as soon as I'm unblocked, this time with a source. --Thonos (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS must be kept in mind. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't think it was vandalism. However, announcing your intention of restoring the edit is not a good idea. Wikipedia works by consensus, discussion, and willingness to accept that one doesn't always get one's way, not by individual editors repeatedly restoring the same edit in an attempt to impose their own opinion. Have a look at Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for You must discuss this changes rather than edit war them back into place. Also the refs where not compliant with WP:MEDMOS. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 25 May 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is an unacceptable insolence. I took the sources from Anal_sex#General: Frequent anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures. If that is OK, then my edit must be correct too. This is no edit warring - this is sourced, verifiable information. btw, on other wikipedias it is unthinkable to ban an user after one single non-vandal edit. This must be in direct contradiction with your ban policy. No wonder that english wikipedia loses its users - too many users will be dissuaded from editing wikipedia. I am personally disgusted by this and I am considering to leave this project. --Thonos (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring, and your stated intention to continue doing so. You're not banned, and it's quite simple to get unblocked: just agree to not edit war. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:25, 25 May 2011 (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.

Rectal pain

You seem determined to insert a comment in this article about brutal anal sex. I would concede that, as a cause of pain, trauma is a cause in any bodily organ. But several editors feel that tp describe it as you do is not appropriate, and I feel they are correct. Inserting in the article, as a cause of rectal pain, the word "trauma", would, I think, be acceptable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the text "brutal anal sex" four times to the article on rectal pain. Not a single one of the refs you provided uses the wording "brutal". Not one of the references are compliant with WP:MEDMOS. You have been clearly informed of these requirements above. You stated that immediately after your ban ended you would re add this text. Thus your current ban. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't tell me how is it possible that the same thing is contained in the article about anal sex mentioned above. Does it mean that there are different standards for the same information? --Thonos (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it mention "brutal" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references you have given supports the claim that anal sex is a common or major cause of rectal pain. In the absence of reliable sources indicating that this is the case, the claim does not belong in the article. You may also like to see WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is written in the context of arguments used in deletion discussions, but the idea is also relevant in this context. Remember that you were blocked indefinitely, and I decided to give you a second chance by limiting the length of the block. You have now been given another limited block because you repeated again some of the same sort of editing that led to the first block. You did so despite having been advised on the need to avoid edit warring, and having been given a link to the guideline on medical sources. Wikipedia works by cooperation and consensus, and editors who persist in trying to force through their own views are not welcome. I may also remind you that you were given the benefit of the doubt on an edit in which you gratuitously and out of any context gave "nigger" as your edit summary, subsequently claiming that you "did not want anyone to see it publicly", but giving no explanation as to what you did intend. There is a significant risk that, if you continue in this way, you will be blocked indefinitely and stay blocked next time, so if you do wish to continue to contribute here, I strongly recommend editing in cooperation with others, via discussion and, when necessary, compromise. If, on the other hand, you choose to leave, as you have suggested you may, then that is absolutely fine: you are under no obligation to stay. Just two more comments: (1) "This is no edit warring - this is sourced, verifiable information." No, edit warring is repeatedly reverting to the same or approximately the same version, and it does not somehow not count as edit warring because you think you are right. (2) Before making the above unblock request did you follow the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks? If not then I suggest doing so if you ever consider making another unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring on Race and crime

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Note that this article is among those covered by WP:ARBR&I. In particular WP:TE and blanking of sourced content is sanctionable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your offensive user page

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Giornorosso (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 02:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]