User:DanP

In a distant galaxy, two leaders were discussing the end of a long galactic war. During a tense moment on treaty negotiations, a freak acoustic wormhole opened up and carried words originating from Earth, "be careful not to demand too much evidence lest you be called upon to substantiate the myriad of anti-circumcision speculation". In the alien tongue, purely by phonetic chance, this was the most horrible insult and would lead their galaxy to another two centuries of galactic war.

Welcome to my user page. Aside from reading Douglas Adams, lately I've been keeping a close eye on the terrible Wikipedia actions of User:Robert the Bruce, which I've paraphrased in my introductory paragraph. Some of his actions verge on infuriating, but most of them are just humorous.

User:Robert the Bruce
(was User:Robert Brookes and User:Friends of Robert) As a side note, a Request for arbitration is pending against this person... Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce

In addition to accusing me of feigning neutrality to trick admins, and then turning around and "proving" I'm not (I never said I was), RTB has been making trouble and failing to justify his edits (a list of his edit summaries provided below).

I have asked him several times to share Wikipedia with others, and RTB has a wonderful time insisting:


 * My positions do not "deserve equal time"


 * Genital integrity is a "lunatic extremist view" and has "psychosexual motivation"


 * Foreskin restoration is carried out by homosexual mental patients

He also has vandalized my user page. I hope somebody is keeping tabs on him.

Some of RTB's excellent rationalizations
All of these edit summaries were made by User:Robert the Bruce or his past account on Wikipedia. I just could not contain myself reading them. Get some popcorn folks, these are good.


 * 12 Aug 2004 Foreskin fetish (skin freaks)
 * 13 Aug 2004 Foreskin (Speculative "functions" removed)
 * 22 Aug 2004 Male circumcision (edits and removal of rank propaganda)
 * 27 Aug 2004 Male circumcision (Revert. cirp.org is no neutral source. Stop using it!)
 * 29 Aug 2004 Smegma (Revert - stink is stink why try and hide it?)
 * 29 Aug 2004 Male circumcision (rv - info in news articles and paid supplements not definitive)
 * 29 Aug 2004 Talk:Male circumcision (Naughty, naughty)
 * 29 Aug 2004 Smegma (Keeping the barbarians from the gate)
 * 29 Aug 2004 Foreskin fetish (rv - Truth hurts?)
 * 29 Aug 2004 Smegma (Still trying to keep the barbarians from the gate)
 * 29 Aug 2004 Talk:Smegma (These pesky cirp.org links)
 * 29 Aug 2004 Talk:Male circumcision (cirp.org is a no-no ...)
 * 29 Aug 2004 Foreskin fetish (rv - a nickname is not POV)
 * 2 Sep 2004 Smegma (correcting the attempts to sanitize the hard truth)
 * 2 Sep 2004 Foreskin fetish (does the term "skin freak" touch a nerve?)
 * 2 Sep 2004 Male circumcision (deleting the propaganda)
 * 3 Sep 2004 Ridged band (Fleshing out for the sake of it is unnecessary)
 * 3 Sep 2004 Foreskin (those who add stuff to the article should explain themselves ...)
 * 4 Sep 2004 Foreskin (Those who try to add stuff should explain themselves and not expect those who revert to justify the action)
 * 5 Sep 2004 Talk:Smegma (==the stink and health==)
 * 5 Sep 2004 Foreskin (Parasites on and inside the foreskin on mammals is well documented - jungle tribes would be particularly susceptible)
 * 5 Sep 2004 Smegma (There is no point in quoting Wright if you sanitize the meaning)
 * 6 Sep 2004 Foreskin (rv - cirp is probbly also in the phone book - the context of the mention is a joke)
 * 6 Sep 2004 Smegma (Almost but not quite. Now why are you quibbling over the cirp disclaimer?)
 * 7 Sep 2004 Smegma (thanks for that, but foul is probably the better word)
 * 8 Sep 2004 Talk:Male circumcision (Poor old Dan)
 * 8 Sep 2004 Smegma (The mumbo-jumbo about Lysozyme)
 * 9 Sep 2004 Talk:Smegma (pro-foreskin agenda by stealth ...)
 * 24 Sep 2004 Medical analysis of circumcision (vanhowe's bias needs to be stated)
 * 24 Sep 2004 Foreskin restoration (There are psychiatric aspects)
 * 24 Sep 2004 Medical analysis of circumcision (revert: van Howe's findings are biased and should be ignored)
 * 24 Sep 2004 Foreskin (Be carefully not to demand too much evidence lest you be called upon to substantiate the myriad of anti-circumcision speculation)
 * 29 Sep 2004 Frenulum (This is nothing but wild eyed speculation - deleted)
 * 30 Sep 2004 Smegma (My dear Theresa, the connection between lysozyme and smegma is pretty dubious)
 * 30 Sep 2004 Frenulum (If every bit of speculation has to be included where would we end up - delete)
 * 1 Oct 2004 Frenulum (Fringe opinion has no place in an encyclopedia)
 * 1 Oct 2004 Penile cancer (Theresa, your revert was a deliberate misrepresentation of the references. Please show where in refs 1 & 2 it states what you reverted to - this is wikicrime)
 * 2 Oct 2004 Foreskin restoration (If there are nutters among them then why should that not be stated and stated clearly?)
 * 3 Oct 2004 Frenulum (Psycho sexual content must be supported with credible references and proof to be inserted.)
 * 3 Oct 2004 Frenulum (Will you please stop misrepresenting my opinion. The article is not mainstream opinion but rather from the lunatic fringe. It does not deserve mention.)
 * 1 Nov 2004 Foreskin fetish (Off topic stuff deleted - Michael this article is about the perversion of foreskin fetishism, lets keep the focus tight shall we?)
 * 3 Nov 2004 Foreskin restoration (Rv: DanP please don't attempt to use this article to push your POV - this is not supposed to be a promotional site for foreskin restoration. I think you need to accept this.)
 * 5 Nov 2004 Foreskin restoration (Sorry DanP this article is no place to promote Foreskin restoration and hide the side that would rather not see exposed. Revert to previous JakeW version)
 * 6 Nov 2004 Foreskin restoration (logical deductions are not merely the thoughts of "some" - psychosexual is just that and not physical or anatomical - lets not confuse this)
 * 6 Nov 2004 Foreskin restoration (&#8594;Emotional and Psychological Aspects - The evidence is that half of foreskin restorers have mental problems - Psychiatric therefore is appropriate)
 * 7 Nov 2004 Genital modification and mutilation (Sorry Dan just about anything is better than allowing you to lead the march back to rabid anti-circumcison POV, either by stealth, by proxy or "in your face")
 * 14 Nov 2004 Male circumcision (This is fascinating. We need to cast our minds back to when there were desperate attempts to present CIRP as neutral. Now suddenly DanB can see clearly in such matters. Worth a laugh.)
 * 21 Nov 2004 Foreskin restoration (Once again the bizarre concept that more is better)
 * 21 Nov 2004 Phimosis (Deleting trash does not need explanation. Who gives a flying fart what 'Organizations that oppose circumcision" think?)
 * 24 Nov 2004 Balanitis (Sadly Van Howe is a throughly discredited source. Find another respctable one please.)
 * 29 Nov 2004 Balanitis (Please don't cite Van Howe - his methodologies are proven to be weak and his findings are not worth the paper they are printed on)
 * 7 Dec 2004 Clitoris (Sorry Dan but I don'think that adds to the quality of the article ... a bit more research needed maybe?)
 * 8 Dec 2004 Foreskin restoration (&#8594;Emotional and psychological aspects - You can state why "Psychiatric" is an inappropriate word?)
 * 8 Dec 2004 Foreskin restoration (&#8594;Emotional and psychological aspects - There is beyond doubt a psychiatric dimension to this ... I wonder why you wish to deny this?)
 * 13 Dec 2004 Medical analysis of circumcision (Rv - if he is involved in anti-circumcision activism, then he must be an anti-circumcision activist. We require factual stuff here remember?)