User talk:YourHumanRights

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, YourHumanRights, 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
• How to write a great article
• 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!  Cargoking  talk  20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Association of American Physicians and Surgeons appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 05:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Additionally, you seem to be edit-warring to re-insert this material. Please don't keep reinserting this material, to which several other editors have objected. It won't be "forced" into the article; the best next step is to leave a post at Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (the article talk page) explaining the rationale behind your edits. Others will respond and hopefully we can reach a consensus from there. Please be aware that edit-warring is prohibited, and take a look at the three-revert rule; continued edit-warring may lead to your account being blocked from editing Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. It's not appropriate to remove a large amount of well-sourced material without explanation; additionally, please be aware that when covering controversies (e.g. the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis) we are compelled to accurately represent the overall state of expert opinion rather than highlighting a tiny-minority viewpoint out of proportion to its actual acceptance. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What is inflammatory? What is not sourced? Why is "Quackwatch" a great source while a page on the NCI website is not? What about the three sources I had for the abortion/preterm birth connection is somehow invalid? On behalf of who is this information being kept secret?

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

at Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

As stated in the discussion page, I am being edited out of this article on behalf of people who clearly have a negative view of this organization - and do not want anything from the organization's leaders nor anyone who will post something positive about them shown. This is an organization that has thousands of doctors as members, including Ron Paul (a non partisan if ever there was one). My submissions explaining the human rights laws written after WW2 that the organization uses as their reference for medical ethics were all deleted entirely. What is biased about Geneva, Helsinki, Nuremberg, or the UDHR? Why is a United Nations or Wikipedia source considered a bad one? Why is a 1966 NWT article so important, and the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child "inflammatory" or irrelevant, when the AAPS themselves say clearly that it is one of the foundations of their activism? Or is it that some people simply do not want the other side of the story to appear? On behalf of whom? Why does the organization itself have no input on a page about it? I was blocked by adding the abortion/preterm birth link today. I sited not only the JAAPS article, but also peer reviewed meta analysis of the causal link from the Oxford Journals and The Journal of Reproductive Medicine. But these sources and this information must be deleted in favor of "Quackwatch" - an organization that calls Chiropractic, Organic Foods, and Genetic Diagnoses "quackery?" I've heard that Wikipedia was very biased when it came to difficult and emotive issues like these. Thus Conservapedia has appeared. I figured I'd give it a try, but I'm learning fast that bias is what Wikipedia is all about. I'm not giving up yet. Hopefully, somebody can instill some confidence in me and answer these questions. I see no way that the neutral point of view is served when only negative content is on this page, and any and all positive content about this organization of doctors is repeatedly deleted, and medical science that is not to the liking of some people who are partisan and pro abortion must be kept secret at all costs - the first of which is science itself.YourHumanRights (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

None of this addresses why you were blocked; you were edit warring, and we don't tolerate that here, even if you happen to be 100% correct. We have various dispute resolution mechanisms to use if you feel your edits are being wrongfully excluded. You might want to look at our guide to appealing blocks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:09, 24 July 2009 (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.

things

You have encountered wiki lawyering? That is regrettable. I was banned without chance of mediation or public discussion or mentorship for talk page rule breaking, but there are so many talk page rules that have been continually changing, it is difficult to keep them all in mind. Each time that I was criticized for breaking a different talk page rule, but the "without notice" admin just wanted to ban me to increase my banned count--stating that he had wanted the ban to be much longer. The excuses for not unbanning me were that my explanation and argument against my having been banned were too long to read, and then finally that the 24 hour ban had already elapsed.

My ban came from expressing my opinion that was unpopular (the soapbox argument). My disruptive editing somehow prevented other editors from contributing. I did this by starting my own topic discussion on an interested user's talk page related to the climate change / global warming debate, then explaining it all (soap box). So the distinguishing factor of what is and is not soap box is whether or not the information / opinion is a popular one with all the editors reading it and if ownership of the opinion is admitted. If everyone is in universal agreement with the information presented, ownership of the opinion is not expressed, then a discussion topic is deemed welcome information, otherwise, it is unwelcome, disruptive, non-mainstream, and a soap box presentation of unwanted / forbidden information.

Lots of other editors express opinions on user talk pages, but they do not get warnings or bans--why not? Medical editors talk about stamping out quackery on Wikipedia. What is done?

The way that any debate discussion / article goes is that the mainstream media's view is the only one that is presentable based on the "valid argument" that they are deemed a Wikipedia reliable source. Within this framework, leaked, non-mainstream information is automatically deemed unreliable, or not notable, and a contributor who has opposing views simply excises the reported leaked information from an article. What this means is that if the mainstream media were indeed controlled and corrupted, then by proxy, Wikipedia would be under the same control and also be corrupted. I was told a while ago that Wikipedia is not about truth. Those are the boundaries set by the rules within which editors are bound.

It would only be conspiracy theories and conjecture to postulate the reasons for corruption anywhere, especially in the mainstream media, unless a former insider decides to leak this information in another mainstream media source that could be referenced. Dan Rather might come forward and tell all? Oldspammer (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Please be aware that all Wikipedia pages related to abortion are subject to discretionary sanctions, as described here. An editor who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" may be banned from editing these pages by any uninvolved administrator. I think you've been using the article talkpages to articulate your personal views on abortion in a strident, inflammatory, and unconstructive manner, in violation of this site's talkpage guidelines. If you continue, then I will probably request that your conduct be reviewed in light of the discretionary sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)