User talk:Woodstock2010

Regarding your edit to Circumcision:

Your recent edit to Circumcision (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism, link spam, or test edits to the page. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 07:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced material to this article. It doesn't matter if it's true or not without references. --Onorem 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding (see Sex: A Guide) to the middle of your statement doesn't make it referenced. Unfortunately, I can't revert again without breaking the Three-revert rule. Hopefully, someone else will take care of it soon. You need to provide a reliable source. --Onorem 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:VERIFY. It seems you could learn from both of them. Your personal experiences with men don't count as a reliable source. --Onorem 07:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 07:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple more links for you. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Even if you just want to say that it is believed by some, you need to provide a source. Your personal attacks are out of line. --Onorem 07:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, your edits are speculative and/or constitute original research and cannot be included. Please cite your edits with a reliable source, one that is verifiable. Thank you. Gzkn 08:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Jakew 12:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31H

You have been blocked 31H for edit warring and WP:3RR violation.--CSTAR 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Woodstock2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

24.28.143.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Woodstock2010". The reason given for Woodstock2010's block is: "Aggressive edit warring 3RR vio".

Blocking administrator: CSTAR (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. —P ilotguy (ptt) 21:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 4 days

You have been blocked 4 days for abusive sockpuppetry, edit warring and WP:3RR violation.--CSTAR 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Woodstock2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

24.28.143.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Woodstock2010". The reason given for Woodstock2010's block is: "Aggressive edit warring 3RR vio".

Blocking administrator: CSTAR (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Woodstock2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i am being punished for what my brother did, and he's not even here anymore, he left for college this morning

Decline reason:

The account was registered, just yesterday, and has only made edits inside a very narrow area -- unfortunately, there's no concrete evidence to support your explanation. If you would like to contribute helpfully and within policy, you're welcome to do so once the block expires. Sorry. Luna Santin 10:29, 8 January 2007 (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.

Your edits to Brit Milah

Hello. Wanted to explain why we are reverting your edits to this article. You are attempting to add a general argument against circumcision citing scientific research etc. suggesting that having a foreskin improves ones sex life. The difficulty with this material is that Wikipedia is not a place for essays expressing general arguments that might be potentially usable for or against a subject. Such arguments are considered original research. See our WP:NOT#SOAP policy. The type of material that is appropriate for this section would be arguments that actual opponents of the Brit Milah ritual have actually used and published, with reliable sources to show this. It's entirely possible that opponents of the Brit Milah ritual have used exactly these arguments or very similar ones, but there nees to be sources showing this. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unomia

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Unomia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Onorem 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]