User talk:YourHumanRights

Welcome[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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)[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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

things[edit]

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)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

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)[reply]

I have filed a request for enforcement related to the warning above. You should comment there as soon as you are able. NW (Talk) 02:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new about those who cannot refute the scientific facts running to the censors once they realize they have little or nothing to go with to refute those facts.. In this case, we have been discussing a major cause of maternal mortality, infant mortality, cerebral palsy, autism, and other birth defects associated with needless preterm births. The science here is better than that connecting smoking to lung cancer. What would your very fervent wish to keep this science quiet and left out of a wikipedia article be, if not your personal political positions regarding one of it's causes?? The tobacco industry also had its devout followers seeking to silence every scientific study that came at their political views.. We can accuse each other of trying to bend the facts to meet our personal views. Bottom line is that I have communicated the facts by way of citing nearly a dozen sources and published, peer reviewed scientific studies. Thus far, nobody has come along with a *single* study refuting these facts in its own data.

I'm guessing those running to the censors will prevail here, as I am already familiar with how wikipedia has worked in the past. But the attempts here to censor the science rather than intellectually and scientifically refute it will be well documented in that event. That will be worthwhile in and of itself. We'll see.. For the record, scientific studies are not inflammatory - as they don't ignite any fires. They are in fact very constructive. And my discussion about the motive that a few doctors groups have in ignoring or diminishing the abortion/preterm birth link might make some people angry - but it doesn't make any of it untrue. If you didn't have such passionate political positions on the topic of abortion, you wouldn't be spending so much time trying to silence me and silence the published studies on the matter. We could play this "I know you are, but what am I" game forever, but the facts as presented are all that ultimately matters. If you can't offer up the published studies that invalidate all the ones I have posted, perhaps you could again consider the results of preterm births and WHY you would want to keep people in the dark about ANY cause thereof. Just a question..

YourHumanRights (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually inaccurate material[edit]

Please stop adding false and factually inaccurate material to Wikipedia. You amended our article on Declaration of Geneva to assert that the declaration describes life as beginning at conception ([1]). I don't know what you were thinking, but it is trivially easy to look up the actual Declaration of Geneva, which contains no such clause. Whatever your motivation for adding falsehoods to Wikipedia, please stop. MastCell ^Talk 02:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YHR and MastCell: I've noted on the talk page that this is not strictly an issue of falsehood, but of being misleading, given that the oath has changed since its creation and no longer contains that text. The concern of using Wikipedia solely as a venue for a political agenda still stands, but I apologize for jumping the gun and assuming that you, like users in the past, had inserted an outright falsehood. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the intent of the edit was to describe a historical version of the Declaration, then that should have been made very clear in the text. To cite the original oath without making clear that it had been amended is misleading. I'm also not seeing a reliable source for the old version of the text, which would be required - there is a citation further on in the text to an anti-circumcision website, but that's not an ideal source. In any case, if the intent was to describe a historical version of the Declaration, then I'll withdraw the accusation of adding falsehoods and instead ask that YourHumanRights take more care with sourcing and in avoiding misleading edits. MastCell ^Talk 02:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Mastcell comes crashing down on an article and pretends he/she can make history vanish. He/she removed the Declaration of Geneva is it was agreed to in 1948 following the Nazi Doctors Trial, because clearly he/she doesn't like the FACT that it included the following lines:

“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, form the time of its conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I practice my profession with conscience and dignity.”

This editor has consistently endeavored to delete and/or block medical science from appearing on any abortion related pages, and now presumes that he/she is in charge of deleting world history also. If anyone such as myself dares to mention either, he/she runs to the censors.. Is this really what wikipedia is all about? Deleting and blocking medical science AND world history? It is Mastcell who is posting factually inaccurate material. Clearly, he/she has a very keen interest in keeping the Declaration of Geneva from 1948 to 1968 a secret. That he/she would have the gall to actually accuse someone else of doing same is really absurd.

I clearly described that it was the ORIGINAL version, and made no attempt to edit the current version whatsoever.

http://www.firstdonoharm.org.uk/declaration

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=lusol_fac_pubs

YourHumanRights (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the Declaration of Geneva page anew with the correct information that was erroneously deleted. In the future, I hope both MastCell and Roscelese take much more care and avoid making false accusations regarding facts that they themselves turn out to be wrong about. Apology accepted, Roscelese. Apology from MastCell has not as yet been forthcoming. Everyone has opinions (I hope), and everyone has political positions. It appears that a few editors let theirs lead them into making false accusations in this case.

Note: Not all doctors or doctors groups accept the more recent edits of the declaration of Geneva.

YourHumanRights (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You gave two links above. The first, http://www.firstdonoharm.org.uk/declaration is to a group which describes itself: "FIRST DO NO HARM is an offshoot of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human, Life". This is self-evidently an advocacy group, not an objectively wp:RS. The second link, http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=lusol_fac_pubs makes no mention at all of the Declaration of Geneva, so cannot possibly be used to support an assertion about it. If you wish to be taken seriously here, you'll need to work to WP standards. Please read and understand our core policies, encapsulated by wp:5P, but in particularly wp:V. If other editors and readers cannot find, examine, assess and trust the sources cited, content based upon them is useless.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog, your opinion on the reliability of some doctors groups over others is just that: your opinion. That's all it is. AAPLOG and AAPS still accept the Declaration of Geneva in its original form (1948-1968) in regard to it's scientifically factual statement of when human life begins. That you prefer the doctors groups who include doctors that inject poison into the heart of infants, behead them, and dismember them is certainly your right. But they are the ones who have a vested interest in keeping certain science and certain history quiet. AAPLOG and the AAPS have no such worries. A core policy of wikipedia is to be factually accurate. I updated the Declaration of Geneva page to be factually accurate. I also responded here to absurd accusations that my edits were not factually accurate. Are you seriously suggesting that the Declaration of Geneva as originally drafted and accepted in 1948 never existed? Or are you suggesting that I misquoted it? You are free to make either assertion, and if so feel free to back up what you accuse me of. Indeed, your comments regarding my sources seem to me to be a diversion from the real issue. Are the edits I made factual, or are they not?

I will also add that my first source was merely to present an online version of the original Declaration from a doctor's group that adheres to and admires it. It suggests no endorsement on my part from anything else they advocate. My second source is an exhaustive historical study of the trials at Nuremberg and the role abortion charges (and convictions) played in them. Common sense tells us that the Declaration of Geneva was written the way it was just a matter of months later due in very large part to this process. If this history and these facts are unpleasant to you personally or do not jibe well with your political beliefs, that is not my problem. Nor does it change a single historical fact. Nor does it change the Declaration of Geneva as it was originally crafted and accepted. You can dismiss the sources of any other editor as you so choose. But the bottom line here remains that my edits were correct and factual, and you are not in charge of what sources I provide - or their validity. They are both good sources, and I have many to choose from.

YourHumanRights (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may choose to think my political beliefs enter into this, but you are wrong. I do not really doubt the text was similar to or identical to the form that firstdonoharm reports, but the need to actually cite sources that all users can assess without having to blindly trust is basic. Drawing our own conclusions and inferences explicitly violates this, which is why we have wp:NOR: readers should not have to trust the thought process of an anonymous editor. Consider instead citing PMC 1303553 which shows several oaths (including that one) the context of an informed discussion. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will not make history vanish on the Declaration of Geneva page due to your personal political agenda all these decades later. The people who wrote the Declaration of Geneva were very serious and ethical people. Your attempts to make their work and their reaction to Axis medical atrocities vanish on this or any forum says all we need to know about both of you - LeadSongDog and Roscelese. It was written the way it was for one basic reason: "Never Again!" You both are loudly proclaiming "Yes, Again!" by trying to make their words and their warnings disappear - here or anywhere. What you clearly support is one of the things they sought never to make its way back into the history books of humankind. That is has likewise makes none of what they did in 1948 invalid or worthy of being censored by either of you in 2013. Holocaust denial is what you have stooped to in this case.

YourHumanRights (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the devil are you talking about? I've done nothing like what you describe. In fact, I just suggested a better source to you. Did you even read it? LeadSongDog come howl! 02:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see, you've chosen to blame me for user:Roscelese's edits. I'll accept your apology at any time.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology offered, LeadSongDog - I did indeed make that mistake due only to the edits having been made by booth of you in such a short period of time.. Why don't you update the page to reflect each version? I think the original (longest lasting) version should obviously come first, and the current version come last. Whether you want to include all the others in their entirety I'll leave up to you.. But be forewarned that Roscelese seems really obsessed with keeping the original version off the page. Check out his talk page and see what else this editor has had to say about the Holocaust..

YourHumanRights (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you refer to the "Nazis on Wikipedia" section of R's talkpage, I think you've misread it. It is referring to this revert BY R of some denialist nonsense.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page style on Talk:abortion[edit]

Hello,

I'd like to make a few suggestions on how you could more effectively communicate your points on talk pages.

I agree that informed consent is vital. If I believed that abortion caused preterm births, I would want everybody getting an abortion to know that.

But you will never be able to convince me of it this way, because you included in your argument a description of curettage as shoving a knife through a cervix, you posted walls of text in an indignant tone, you did not respond to others' concerns, and at one point you used eleven question marks. It also did not help that you indented none of your comments (colons to indent!), which did not help the wall-of-text situation.

None of those will communicate your point. MastCell and DocJones were being reasonable; I think their assessment of your text as being 90% rhetoric and 10% substance was accurate.

For example, your first paragraph was as follows:

This article reads from start to finish like it was written by the director of an abortion facility, and leaves out so much science and so many facts (those that such a person would likely find troubling) that the biggest problem here is knowing where to even start. But let's start with this one, already present on the preterm birth article. People can of course disagree with whether abortion is morally defensible, but deliberately suppressing medical science to do so is absurd under any circumstance. This is especially true given the gravity of this issue, and the results it has already had on many people. Mechanisms include damage done to the cervix as it is forced open, knives pushed through, and the infant's body parts dragged or sucked out. The greater incidence of infections are also suspected here, which also lead to some women who undergo abortions never being able to carry a child to term again in the future.

So it opens by insulting the article and saying that you think the other editors are incompetent and biased. That is not a consensus-building statement. Then it says that we're deliberately suppressing accurate information, so we're also malevolent. Then you describe abortion in a clearly charged way ("knives" for "curettes" and "infant" instead of "fetus"). You never actually state your thesis in your opening paragraph.

What if, instead of that, it read:

I feel that the association between pre-term birth and abortion has enough evidence that it should be included in this article. I've included below a list of sources; the first three are meta-analyses and the rest are editorials by prominent ob/gyns. I've noted which ones support a causal relationship and which only support an association. It may be relevant that this has already been discussed on talk:preterm birth.

That would be all you needed to say. No more paragraphs would be necessary in your initial post.

We're really not here to attack you. We're really not here to be malevolent. But you are making demands and then objecting to every objection we have. That is never going to reach a compromise, and it is never going to convince us.

Sorry about how long this is! (Please indent your response! :P )

Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the cowards come along just in the nick of time to squelch the published science on the topic. Given the seriousness of the topic, the folks who have lost the argument scientifically and run to the censors instead are as low as you can get as human beings. Who would ever want to prevent needless cases of cerebral palsy anyway??

What these ghouls fear the most are the actual facts, and that means for their political agenda. Here is the post that these corrupt, cruel, and dishonest people have deleted:

DELETED POST SHOWN BELOW

Well then it should be exceptionally easy for any of you to simply point out what is wrong with the two paragraphs, which of course would involve refuting the published science on the subject. Falling back (again) on a few henpicked medical groups (but only the ones who do and support abortion on demand, none of the others) and their attempts to dilute the actual data and facts in the published science doesn't change one iota of what the actual science tells us. This is akin to trusting Phillip Morris to evaluate the science regarding their product back in the 1970's and let them update an article on tobacco's risks.. Note that all three of you are still operating on the presumption that you can simply dismiss the results of the meta-analyses and the systematic reviews based upon henpicking a few groups that you have labelled "relevant" of more worthy of quoting rather than ALL the other groups who accept the actual results of the peer reviewed, published science. So if indeed you find fault in those two paragraphs - which merely repeat what the published science says very clearly - then you must refute the the conclusions of the science itself.

Go ahead. Have at it. Show us all what is wrong, where it is wrong, and how all these scientific studies and their conclusions were wrong. As far as I can see so far, you can't even make reference to a single number or fact that is wrong.

YourHumanRights (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to discuss what is or is not true; I came here to give you feedback on how to be a more effective member of the Wikipedia community. When you're interested in that feedback, I'll be here. Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Abortion[edit]

The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):

You are indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to abortion, including (but not limited to) the article Declaration of Geneva.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this Arbitration Enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 14:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this post is in violation of your newly imposed topic ban. I removed your post. Please do not post again on abortion-related topics. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your abortion topic ban, imposed above, by reposting the abortion-related material on this talk page that Binksternet warned you about,

you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Sandstein 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Because the ban violation occurred on this talk page, I have also removed your talk page access for the duration of the block. Sandstein 16:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a cabal of pro abortion political activists on wikipedia got together and made sure that the abortion preterm birth link (settled science) will appear, but only in a diluted and biased fashion so as to be almost worthless. I was the one who educated every single one of you that it exists.. This cabal also has an extreme interest in making sure that nobody can read the Declaration of Geneva as adopted in 1948 following the Nuremberg trials. The same one that was universally accepted for 20 years thereafter, and is still respected by a majority of the world's physicians.

This is why wikipedia has the reputation that it does. This is why there is a Conservapedia. The very consistent political agenda here even applies to Holocaust denial and making sure a major cause of preterm birth and birth defects remains hidden also. That is on the conscience of everyone who took part in this censorship of world history and of medical science. Thanks for proving your doubters right twice more. Your abortion article is a collection of dishonest lies propagated by the same people actually doing the killings. It in no way represents a fair or unbiased accounting of the facts.

YourHumanRights (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing contrary to your topic ban from abortion[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision,

you have been blocked from editing for 1 year. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Per this recent edit you seem to have no intention of observing the topic ban from abortion that was placed on your account on June 7. Your ban was imposed per an AE discussion. Since then you've already been blocked once for a ban violation. Since topic bans don't have value for those who ignore them, I'm blocking your account for one year under the authority of discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]